Ii. Public Comments and Responses

II. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

OVERVIEW

The purpose of the public review of the Draft EIR is to evaluate the adequacy of the environmental analysis in terms of compliance with CEQA. Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines states the following regarding standards from which adequacy is judged:

An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision- makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among experts. The courts have not looked for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.

The purpose of each response to a comment on the Draft EIR is to address the significant environmental issue(s) raised by each comment. This typically requires clarification of points contained in the Draft EIR. Section 15088 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines describes the evaluation that CEQA requires in the response to comments. It states that:

The written response shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, the major environmental issues raised when the lead agency’s position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice.

Section 15204(a) (Focus of Review) of the CEQA Guidelines helps the public and public agencies to focus their review of environmental documents and their comments to lead agencies. Case law holds that the lead agency is not obligated to undertake every suggestion given them, provided that the agency responds to significant environmental issues and makes a good faith effort at disclosure. Section 15204.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines clarifies this for reviewers and states:

In reviewing draft EIRs, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of factors such as

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-1 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

the magnitude of the project at issue, the severity of its likely environmental impacts, and the geographic scope of the project. CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.

The guideline encourages reviewers to examine the sufficiency of the environmental document, particularly in regard to significant effects, and to suggest specific mitigation measures and project alternatives. Given that an effect is not considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence, subsection (c) advises reviewers that comments should be accompanied by factual support. Section 15204(c) states:

Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and, should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.

LIST OF THOSE COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT EIR

The City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning received a total of 72 comment letters on the Draft EIR. Copies of each of the letters received are provided in Appendix A to this Final EIR. Each comment letter has been assigned a corresponding number, and comments within each comment letter are also numbered. For example, comment letter “1” is from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit. The first comment from this letter is 1-1 signifying ‘written comment letter 1, first comment.’ Written comment letters were received from the following organizations and persons:

Letter Commenter Letter Dated No. Public Agencies Terry Roberts, Director, State Clearinghouse, State of California, 1 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and July 1, 2008 Planning Unit Dave Singleton, Program Analyst, Director, State of California, Native 2 June 4, 2008 American Heritage Commission Kelly Schmoker, Staff Environmental Scientist, State of California, 3 May 28, 2008 Department of Fish and Game Elmer Alvarez, IGR/CEQA Program Manager, State of California – Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, Department of 4 May 8, 2008 Transportation, District 7, Office of Regional Planning and Public Transportation

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-2 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Letter Commenter Letter Dated No. Laverne Jones, Planning Technician, Southern California Association of 5 May 16, 2008 Governments, Environmental Planning Division Susan Chapman, Program Manager, Long Range Planning, Metropolitan 6 June 9, 2008 Transportation Authority, Metro CEQA Review Coordination Glenn Striegler, Environmental Assessment Coordinator, Los Angeles 7 Unified School District, LAUSD Office of Environmental Health & June 30, 2008 Safety Brent Lorscheider, Acting Division Manager, City of Los Angeles, 8 June 18, 2008 Bureau of Sanitation, Wastewater Engineering Services Division Brent Lorscheider, Acting Division Manager, City of Los Angeles, 9 June 12, 2008 Bureau of Sanitation, Wastewater Engineering Services Division Rowena Lau, Environmental Engineering Associate, City of Los 10 Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation, Wastewater Engineering Services June 16, 2008 Division 11 Michael Theule, City of Los Angeles Fire Department June 23, 2008 Michael A. Shull, Superintendent, City of Los Angeles, Department of 12 June 2, 2008 Recreation and Parks Mike Bagheri, Transportation Engineer, City of Los Angeles, Department 13a May 2, 2008 of Transportation Tomas Carranza, Senior Transportation Engineer, City of Los Angeles, 13b October 29, 2008 Department of Transportation Private Individuals and Organizations 14 Arturo Martinez, President, Melrose Neighborhood Association June 30, 2008 15 Sabrina D. Venskus, Esq., Law Offices of Sabrina Venskus June 30, 2008 16 Lucile Saunders, President, La Brea-Willoughby Coalition June 30, 2008 17 Ittay Arad June 21, 2008 18 Michael Barba June 16, 2008 19 Peter A. Binkow and Johanna K. Blakley June 26, 2008 20 Ana Marie Carreno June 23, 2008 21 Mohammed Choudhury June 27, 2008 22 Phil Curtis June 26, 2008 23 Navid Dayzad June 22, 2008 24 Ronald Dennis Watson June 16, 2008 25 Rio Diaz June 23, 2008 26 Hilda P. Goldsmith June 24, 2008 27 Karen Ibenthal June 15, 2008 28 David Kaufman June 16, 2008 29 Frederick V. Kuklowsky June 10, 2008 30 Dana Lamb June 25, 2008

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-3 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Letter Commenter Letter Dated No. 31 Leland E. Leard Undated 32 Camille Licate June 14, 2008 33 Maria Elena Limon June 27, 2008 34 Billy Lush June 23, 2008 35 Angela Bradshaw June 19, 2008 36 Peter Gray Mansinne June 23, 2008 37 Melissa M. Michelson June 5, 2008 38 Viola Nuffer Undated 39 Mikhail Okumyansky June 25, 2008 40 Seth Olansky June 23, 2008 41 Mary Orbach June 21, 2008 42 Ursula Ortiz June 16, 2008 43 Eric Pascavage Undated 44 Maria Raube June 23, 2008 45 Ward Roberts June 17, 2008 46 Jeffery Roth June 23, 2008 47 Chris Rubeo June 14, 2008 48 Lucille Saunders June 16, 2008 49 Justin Simons Undated 50 Irina Vaisman June 25, 2008 51 Terry Walters June 23, 2008 52 Laura Whipple June 26, 2008 53 David White June 21, 2008 54 Lucile Saunders, President, La Brea-Willoughby Coalition Undated 55 Bob Abrahams July 4, 2008 56 Peter Binkow June 27, 2008 57 Gail and Charles Boswell Undated 58 Angela Bradshaw June 19, 2008 59 Pete Bleyer July 9, 2008 60 Patrice Dally July 9, 2008 61 Leland E. Leard June 30, 2008 62 Paul Lerner June 13, 2008 63 Jill Manning, Ed.D. June 30, 2008 64 J. H. McQuiston May 20, 2008 65 Melissa Michelson June 15, 2008 66 Viola Nuffer June 23, 2008 67 Bonnie Pastor July 3, 2008 68 Josh Rohmer June 22, 2008 69 Jeffery Roth June 17, 2008

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-4 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Letter Commenter Letter Dated No. 70 Jeffery Roth June 24, 2008 71 Dakota Sands June 17, 2008 72 Lucille Saunders June 17, 2008

PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

The following pages provide the written comments and the responses to these comments.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-5 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 1

Terry Roberts, Director, State Clearinghouse, State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit

Comment No. 1-1

The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on December 10, 2007, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project’s ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly.

Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that:

“A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation.”

These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly.

This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process.

Response to Comment No. 1-1

This comment letter acknowledges that the City of Los Angeles has complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft EIRs pursuant to CEQA. Comments provided by state agencies to the State Clearinghouse are addressed in the responses to comment letter nos. 2, 3 and 4.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-6 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 2

Dave Singleton, Program Analyst, Director, State of California, Native American Heritage Commission

Comment No. 2-1

The Native American Heritage Commission is the state agency designated to protect California's Native American Cultural Resources. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, that includes archaeological resources, is a 'significant effect' requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) per the California Code of Regulations §15064.5(b)(c (CEQA guidelines). Section 15382 of the 2007 CEQA Guidelines defines a significant impact on the environment as "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of physical conditions within an area affected by the proposed project, including .... objects of historic or aesthetic significance." In order to comply with this provision, the lead agency is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the 'area of potential effect (APE)', and if so, to mitigate that effect. To adequately assess the project-related impacts on historical resources, the Commission recommends the following action:

√ Contact the appropriate California Historic Resources Information Center (CHRIS) for possible 'recorded sites' in locations where the development will or might occur.. Contact information for the Information Center nearest you is available from the State Office of Historic Preservation (916/653- 7278)/ http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov. The record search will determine:

• If a part or the entire APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources.

• If any known cultural resources have already been recorded in or adjacent to the APE. • If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. • If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present. √ If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey.

• The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measurers should be submitted immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for pubic disclosure.

• The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional archaeological Information Center.

√ Contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for:

* A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search of the project area and information on tribal contacts in the project vicinity that may have additional cultural resource information. Please provide this office

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-7 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

with the following citation format to assist with the Sacred Lands File search request: USGS 7.5~minute quadrangle citation with name, township, range and section;

• The NAHC advises the use of Native American Monitors to ensure proper identification and care given cultural resources that may be discovered. The NAHC recommends that contact be made with Native American Contacts on the attached list to get their input on potential project impact (APE). In some cases, the existence of a Native American cultural resources may be known only to a local tribe(s).

√ Lack of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preclude their subsurface existence.

• Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of accidentally discovered archeological resources, per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) §15064.5 (f). In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American, with knowledge in cultural resources, should monitor all ground-disturbing activities.

• A culturally-affiliated Native American tribe may be the only source of information about a Sacred Site/Native American cultural resource.

• Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the disposition of recovered artifacts, in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans.

√ Lead agencies should include provisions for discovery of Native American human remains or unmarked cemeteries in their mitigation plans.

* CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(d) requires the lead agency to work with the Native Americans identified by this Commission if the initial Study identifies the presence or likely presence of Native American human remains within the APE. CEQA Guidelines provide for agreements with Native American, identified by the NAHC, to assure the appropriate and dignified treatment of Native American human remains and any associated grave liens.

√ Health and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.98 and Sec. §15064.5 (d) of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines) mandate procedures to be followed, including that construction or excavation be stopped in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery until the county coroner or medical examiner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. Note that §7052 of the Health & Safety Code states that disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony.

√ Lead agencies should consider avoidance. as defined in §15370 of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines), when significant cultural resources are discovered during the course of project planning and Implementation

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-8 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Response to Comment No. 2-1

This letter is a standard letter that is generally sent by the Native American heritage Commission in response to a Notice of Preparation rather than a Draft EIR. However, the analysis in the Draft EIR is based on surveys of the project site and facilities, as well as consultation with the appropriate agencies for the Los Angeles region.

The Project site has been developed with at-grade land uses since the 1920s and it is difficult to know what lies beneath the ground surface. Therefore, the South Central Coastal Information Center was contacted to obtain information regarding all known archaeological resources in the vicinity of the Project site. The Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County was contacted to obtain information regarding all known paleontological resources in the vicinity of the Project site. As discussed on page IV.D-10 of the Draft EIR, the records searches identified no prehistoric archaeological sites, prehistoric isolates, historic archaeological sites, or historic isolates within the boundaries of the Project site. Thus, no evidence of archeological remains on the Project site have ever been discovered, and excavation on site and development of the Project site is not anticipated to affect archaeological resources. This would include Native American resources. Even though the records searches identified no known archaeological sites within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project site, since no substantial excavation has ever occurred within the Project site, impacts to archaeological resources could occur during excavation activities for the proposed subterranean parking structure. Destruction of a currently unknown significant archaeological resource at the Project would constitute a significant impact.

Mitigation measures are identified on pages IV.D-10 and IV.D-11 of the Draft EIR that would reduce potential Project impacts to unknown significant archaeological resources to a less than significant level should such archaeological resources be encountered.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-9 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 3

Kelly Schmoker, Staff Environmental Scientist, State of California, Department of Fish and Game

Comment No. 3-1

The Department of Fish and Game has the following concerns with the above mentioned project. Please address concerns to nesting birds, which may be affected by removing native and non-native vegetation as well as bats, which are protected species and can reside in vacant buildings. Surveys for bats should occur in any buildings that will be demolished per the language below.

Response to Comment No. 3-1

This comment is addressed under the Responses to Comments Nos. 3-2 and 3-3, below.

Comment No. 3-2

1. Impacts to Bats – The project will result in the demolition of buildings and removal of trees and therefore may result in take and/or disturbances to bats. The likelihood that bats reside on the project site is high given the roosting and feeding habitat afforded on the project site and adjacent nearby lake.

a. Bats are considered non-game mammals and are afforded protection by state law from take and/or harassment, (Fish and Game Code Section 4150, California Code of Regulations, Section 251.1). Several bat species are also considered California Species of Special Concern. The Department recommends avoiding disturbances to all bat roosting and nursery habitat including on site structures between March 1 and September 15 to avoid the breeding season for bats unless preconstruction surveys are conducted by a qualified biologist and not bat roosts or nurseries are found within the project area.

Response to Comment No. 3-2

The EIR biologist disagrees with the commenter regarding the high potential for bats to roost and feed on the site. There is no lake adjacent to the site or nearby (no water bodies are located within several miles of the site) and given the highly urbanized nature of the site and surrounding area, and the severely limited potential foraging on-site (as it is predominantly occupied by existing structures and pavement, with only a few landscaped trees), the EIR biologist believes that the potential for bats to reside on-site is very low. Moreover, given that the buildings are used infrequently and bats rarely reside in developed areas, there is a low possibility that bats may roost within the buildings or trees to be demolished/removed. In any event, Mitigation Measure A-1 addresses the protection of bats and has been added to the Final EIR to respond to the Department of Fish and Game’s comment (see Section III, Corrections and Additions). Mitigation Measure A-1 is as follows:

A-1 To avoid impacting roosting bats or bat nursery habitat, the following shall be implemented:

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-10 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

• Substantial effort will be made so that all Project demolition activities (removal of trees or demolition of abandoned buildings) shall take place outside of the bat breeding season which generally runs from March 1 – September 15.

• If Project demolition activities cannot feasibly avoid the bat breeding season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction bat survey. If the survey does not find signs of bat occupation (signs such as guano or staining within buildings, or observed flight from trees or buildings at dusk for foraging), then the Project demolition activities may proceed as planned. If signs of bats are detected during the surveys, tree removal or demolition of buildings shall not commence until the bat breeding season has concluded for that given calendar year.

Comment No. 3-3

2. Nesting Native Birds – The project will result in the removal of vegetation and disturbances to the ground and therefore may result in take of nesting native bird species.

a. Migratory nongame native bird species are protected by international treaty under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (50 C.F.R. Section 10.13). Sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit take of all birds and their active nests including raptors and other migratory nongame birds (as listed under the Federal MBTA).

b. Proposed project activities (including disturbances to native and non-native vegetation, structures and substrates) should take place outside of the breeding bird season which generally runs from March 1-August 31 (as early as February 1 for raptors) to assist in the avoidance of take (including disturbances which would cause abandonment of active nests containing eggs and/or young). Take means to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill (Fish and Game Code Section 86).

c. If project activities cannot feasibly avoid the breeding bird season, the Department recommends that beginning thirty days prior to the disturbance of suitable nesting habitat the project proponent should arrange for weekly bird surveys to detect any protected native birds in the habitat be removed and any other such habitat within 300 feet of the construction work area (within 500 feet for raptors) as access to adjacent property allows. The surveys should be conducted by a qualified biologist with experience in conducting breeding bird surveys. The surveys should continue on a weekly basis with the last survey being conducted no more than three days prior to the initiation of clearance/construction work. If a protected native bird is found, the project proponent should delay all clearance/construction disturbance activities in suitable nesting habitat or within 300 feet of nesting habitat (within 500 feet for raptor nesting habitat) until August 31 or continue the surveys in order to locate any nests. If an active nest is located, clearing and construction within 300 feet of the nest (within 500 feet for raptor nests) or as determined by a biological monitor shall be postponed until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged and when there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. Limits of construction to avoid a nest should be established in the field with flagging and stakes or construction fencing. Construction

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-11 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

personnel should be instructed on the sensitivity of the area. The project proponent should record the results of the recommended protective measures described above to document compliance with applicable State and Federal laws pertaining to the protection of native birds.

Response to Comment No. 3-3

Mitigation Measure A-2 regarding protection of nesting birds has been added in the Final EIR to address the Department of Fish and Game’s comment (see Section III, Corrections and Additions):

A-2 To avoid impacting nesting birds, special status birds and/or raptors, the following shall be implemented:

• Substantial effort will be made so that Project development activities (disturbances to vegetation, structures and substrates) shall take place outside of the breeding bird season which generally runs from March 1 – August 31 (as early as February 1 for raptors) to assist in the avoidance of take (including disturbances which would cause abandonment of active nests containing eggs and/or young).

• If Project development activities cannot feasibly avoid the breeding bird season, weekly bird surveys shall begin 30 days prior to disturbance of suitable nesting habitat in order to detect any protected native birds in the habitat the Project would remove and any other such habitats located within 300 feet of the construction work area (within 500 feet for raptors) as access to surrounding properties allow. The surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist with experience in conducting breeding bird surveys. The surveys shall continue on a weekly basis with the final survey conducted no more than three days prior to the commencement of demolition/construction work. If a protected native bird is found, the Project proponent shall delay all clearance/construction disturbance activities in suitable nesting habitats or within 300 feet of nesting habitats (within 500 feet for raptor nests) until August 31 of the given year or continue the surveys on a weekly basis in order to locate any nests in use by protected native birds. If an active nest is located, demolition and construction within 300 feet of the nest (within 500 feet for raptor nests) or as determined by a biological monitor shall be postponed until (1) the nest is vacated; (2) juveniles have fledged; and (3) there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting by protected native birds. Limits of construction to avoid a nest shall be established in the field with flagging and stakes or construction fencing. In addition, construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of the area. The results of the recommended protective measures described above shall be recorded to document compliance with the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Fish and Game Code for “protecting nesting birds.”

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-12 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 4

Elmer Alvarez, IGR/CEQA Program Manager, State of California – Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, Department of Transportation, District 7, Office of Regional Planning and Public Transportation

Comment No. 4-1

Based on a review of information contained in the Notice of Preparation of a PEIR, we have no comments, except to remind you that Santa Monica Boulevard formerly State Route 2 (SR-2) has been relinquished and is no longer a State Facility. Highland Boulevard, formerly SR-170 has also been relinquished to the City of Los Angeles.

Response to Comment No. 4-1

This letter was actually provided in response to the Notice of Preparation, rather than the Draft EIR, but was not received by the City until after the Draft EIR had been circulated for public review. As such, it does not question the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. The letter reminds the City staff that Santa Monica Boulevard (formerly State Route 2) and Highland Boulevard (formerly SR-170) have been relinquished to the City of Los Angeles. This statement is used to address comments in Letter No. 15c.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-13 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 5

Laverne Jones, Planning Technician, Southern California Association of Governments, Environmental Planning Division

Comment No. 5-1

We have reviewed the La Brea Gateway, and have determined that the proposed Project is not regionally significant per SCAG Intergovernmental Review(IGR) Criteria and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines(Section 15206). Therefore, the proposed Project does not warrant comments at this time. Should there be a change in the scope of the proposed Project, we would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment at that time.

A description of the proposed Project was published in SCAG's April 1-30, 2008 Intergovernmental Review Clearinghouse Report for public review and comment.

Response to Comment No. 5-1

This letter states that the proposed Project is not regionally significant per SCAG Intergovernmental Review Criteria and the CEQA Guidelines, and, as such, the Project does not warrant comments from SCAG at this time. The letter does not question the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-14 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 6

Susan Chapman, Program Manager, Long Range Planning, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Metro CEQA Review Coordination

Comment No. 6-1

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the La Brea Gateway project. Although the proposed project is not expected to result in any long-term impacts on transit:

1) Metro Bus Operations Control Special Events Coordinator should be contacted at 213-922-4632 regarding construction activities that may impact Metro bus lines. Other Municipal Bus Service Operators may also be impacted and therefore should be included in construction outreach efforts.

Response to Comment No. 6-1

Mitigation Measure L-1 has been revised as follows to address the comments from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

L-1 The Project developer shall develop and implement a Work Area Traffic Control Plan approved by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation. The following measures shall be included in the plan, as a minimum, although access restrictions, covered sidewalks, and alternative pedestrian routes may also be required by the Department of Transportation:

• Identification of a designated haul route to be used by construction trucks; • Provide an estimate of the number to trucks trips and anticipated trips; • Identification of traffic control procedures, emergency access provisions, and construction crew parking locations; • Identification of the on-site location of vehicle and equipment staging; • Provide a schedule of construction activities; • Limitations on any potential lane closures to off-peak travel periods; • Scheduling the delivery of construction materials during non-peak travel periods, to the extent possible; • Coordinating deliveries to reduce the potential of trucks waiting to unload building materials; • Prohibiting parking by construction workers on neighborhood streets as determined in conjunction with City staff; • Appoint a community liaison to respond to inquiries or concerns of surround residents, schools and businesses; • Provide near-by schools with a construction schedule and notification of start date for construction; and

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-15 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

• Provide the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the City of West Hollywood with a construction schedule and notification of start date for construction.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-16 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 7

Glenn Striegler, Environmental Assessment Coordinator, Los Angeles Unified School District, LAUSD Office of Environmental Health & Safety

Comment No. 7-1

Christer [sic] A. Joseph & Associates contacted me regarding a response letter we submitted November 10, 2004 for the La Brea Gateway Initial Study and requested that the enrollment date be updated for the DEIR. We submitted an updated response letter dated May 21, 2008 (see attached document). However, our response was not referenced in the DEIR and based on my review of the DEIR, neither the new data nor all of our concerns have not been adequately addressed in their report. We request that the FEIR address our most recent response letter and that a complete copy of our response letter be included in an appendix of the FEIR.

Response to Comment No. 7-1

There appears to be a mistake in this comment in that it refers to a May 21, 2008 response letter from the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). The actual letter, which is attached to the comment letter is dated May 21, 2007. The EIR consultant was in receipt of this letter and used it in the preparation of the Draft EIR along with the letter from the LAUSD dated May 18, 2007, which is also attached to the comment letter. The school enrollment capacity numbers from the May 18, 2007 letter are reflected on pages IV.K-11 and IV.K-14 of the Draft EIR.

The majority of mitigation measures for school pedestrian/traffic safety access identified in the response letter were incorporated into the Draft EIR. These are reflected as mitigation measures K.2-1, K.2-2, and K.3-1 through K.3-6. The following additional measure is added to further address the concerns of the LAUSD (also see Section III, Corrections and Additions – current Mitigation Measure K.3-7 is renumbered as K.3-8).

K.3-7 Prior to demolition and construction activities, the developer shall contact the LAUSD Transportation Branch at (323) 342-1400 to discuss the planned activities and the potential effects on school bus routes for Melrose Elementary School and Bancroft Middle School.

The LAUSD recommends that the Project maintain unrestricted access for school buses during construction. There may be times when travel along the westbound lane of Willoughby Avenue is restricted while it is being widened along the southern frontage of the Project site. Signs identifying the expected dates of restriction would be placed in the vicinity in accordance with standard City policies and any buses traveling to or from Melrose Elementary School or Bancroft Middle School could use an alternate street such as Waring Avenue on their transportation routes.

The LAUSD recommends that the Project comply with provisions of the California Vehicle Code by requiring construction vehicles to stop when encountering school buses using red flashing lights. This provision of the California Vehicle Code is State law to which all motor vehicles are subject and to which

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-17 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

construction vehicles will comply. It is the responsibility of the City of Los Angeles Police Department to enforce this provision in the City of Los Angeles.

The LAUSD recommends that the Project not endanger passenger safety or delay student drop-off or pickup due to changes in traffic patterns, lane adjustments, altered bus stops, or traffic lights. As discussed previously, there may be times when travel along the westbound lane of Willoughby Avenue is restricted while it is being widened along the southern frontage of the Project site. Signs identifying the expected dates of restriction would be placed in the vicinity in accordance with standard City policies and any vehicles transporting students to or from Melrose Elementary School and Bancroft Middle School could use an alternate street such as Waring Avenue on their transportation routes.

The LAUSD recommends that the Project maintain safe and convenient pedestrian routes to LAUSD schools. The pedestrian routes map for Melrose Elementary School was attached to the comment letter upon its receipt. The EIR consultant also reviewed the pedestrian routes map for Bancroft Middle School in preparation for this response. There may be times when access to the sidewalk along the northern side of Willoughby Avenue between LA Brea Avenue and Detroit Street is closed while this segment of Willoughby Avenue is being widened along the southern frontage of the Project site. However, students would continue to have access to the recommended routes along the southern side of Willoughby Avenue while access along the northern side is temporarily restricted.

The EIR consultant has also used the information provided by the LAUSD to revise the evaluation of cumulative impacts to schools and has only included the related projects that are proposed within the attendance areas of the three schools that would serve the Proposed Project. The specific changes to the Draft EIR text are provided in Section III, Corrections and Additions of this Final EIR.

Neither CEQA nor the City requires that data response letters be included as an appendix to a Draft EIR and, as such, they were not provided as an appendix to the Draft EIR for the Proposed Project. All such letters are, however, part of the administrative record for the Project. In this case, the data response letter from the LAUSD is included as part of Comment Letter No. 7 in this Final EIR.

Comment No. 7-2

To assess the adequacy of the applicant's localized emission estimates for construction related activities and subsequent finding that "construction-related daily emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD's applicable LSTs during the Project construction phases", the District requested supplemental information from the lead agency. Specifically, the District requested copies of the URBEMIS2007 output files in "detail" report format to validate the assumptions considered in the analysis.

Upon receipt, the District noted a discrepancy in the applicant's analysis whereby mass grading emission estimates were based upon a maximum daily disturbed area of approximately 1 acre per day (i.e., 0.97 acres). Notwithstanding, the applicant compared a PM10 mitigated daily emission estimate of 7.06 pounds per day to the allowable emission threshold of 8 pounds per day for a 2 acre site configuration. SCAQMD LST values are based upon "the size or total area of the emission source." Therefore, use of the 1 acre source area threshold which serves as the basis for the PM10 emission estimate should be used. As

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-18 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

such, a value for SRA 1 at 25 meters is 5 pounds per day. The value predicted by the applicant exceeds this threshold by more than 2 pounds per day. Mass grading emissions are, therefore, significant and this finding should be documented in the final EIR.

Response to Comment No. 7-2

The EIR consultant disagrees with the commenter’s interpretation of the localized significance thresholds (LSTs) for the proposed Project. As stated on page 1-5 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) Final Localized Significance Thresholds Methodology document, the LSTs are developed based upon the size or total area of the emissions source, the ambient air quality in each source receptor area (SRA) in which the emission source is located, as well as the distance to the receptor. The Final Localized Significance Thresholds Methodology document then identifies LSTs for project sites, not construction activity areas. In the case of the Proposed Project, the total area of the emissions source is the Project site, not a portion thereof. It will not be possible to grade and excavate the entire project site at one time as approximately half of the site is needed during this phase to house construction offices and to store construction equipment. The grading and excavation activities will move around the site in an efficient fashion in order to allow this support activity to remain on site. As a result, emissions will be generated throughout the Project site, although the active area will only be a portion of the site at any given time. Therefore, the Draft EIR used the correct LSTs for the entire Proposed Project and the impact during Project Construction would continue to be less than significant.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-19 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 8

Brent Lorscheider, Acting Division Manager, City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation, Wastewater Engineering Services Division

Comment No. 8-1

This is in response to your April 10, 2008 letter requesting wastewater service information for the proposed project. The Bureau of Sanitation, Wastewater Engineering Services Division (WESD), has conducted a preliminary evaluation of the potential impacts to the wastewater system for the proposed project.

Projected Wastewater Discharges for the Proposed Project:

Type Description Average Daily Flow per Proposed No. of Average Daily Flow Type Description Units (GPD) (GPD/UNIT) Existing Studio: Film/TV 80 GPD/1000 SQ.FT 56,673 SQ.FT (4,534) Proposed Townhouse (Studio) 80 GPD/DU 28 DU 2,240 Townhouse (1BR) 130 GPD/DU 126 DU 16,380 Townhouse (2BR) 180 GPD/DU 65 DU 11,700 Retail 80 GPD/1000 SQ.FT 35,000 SQ.FT 2,800 Commercial 80 GPD/1000 SQ.FT 5,000 SQ.FT 400 Total 28,986

SEWER AVAILABILITY

The sewer infrastructure in the vicinity of the proposed project includes an existing 8-inch line on Romaine St., an 8-inch line on Formosa Ave., and a 12-inch line on La Brea Ave. The sewage from the existing 8-inch lines connects into the existing 8-inch line on Formosa Ave. The sewage feeds into a 15- inch and 18-inch line on Poinsettia Place, then into a 36-inch line on Clinton St. The existing 12-inch line on La Brea continues into a 15-inch line, then a 24-inch line on Melrose Ave and Alta Vista Blvd., before splitting into the 36-inch line on Clinton St., and 27-inch line on Rosewood Ave. All sewage flows discharge into a 72-inch line on Martel Ave.

The current flow level (d/D) in the 8-inch lines, 12-inch line, 15-inch lines, 24-inch line, and 36-inch lines cannot be determined at this time. Based on the available gauging information, the current flow level (d/D) in the 18-inch line and 27-inch line is approximately 55% and 7% full, respectively. The design capacities at d/D of 50% for the 8-inch line is 324,000 Gallons per Day, for the 12-inch line is 1.17 million Gallons per Day, for the 15-inch line is 1.68 million Gallons per Day, for the 18-inch line is 1.09 million Gallons per Day, for the 24-inch line is 9.88 million Gallons per Day, for the 36-inch line on

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-20 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Clinton St. is 24.09 million Gallons per Day, for the 36-inch line on Melrose Ave. is 11.32 million Gallons per Day, and for the 72-inch line is 95.09 million Gallons per Day.

Since our last response on May 7, 2008 detailed gauging data has been obtained. Based on our gauging information, the current flow level (d/D) in the 8-inch line, 12-inch line, 36-inch line on Clinton St., and the 72-inch line is 21%, 25%, 27%, and 71% full, respectively. Due to nearby gauging information, the 15-inch line, 24-line line, 36-inch line on Melrose Ave., are assumed to have available capacity.

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 may be needed as part of the permit process to identify a sewer connection point. If the local sewer line, the 8-inch lines, to the 36-inch sewer line, has insufficient capacity then the developer will be required to build a secondary line to the nearest larger sewer line with sufficient capacity. A final approval for sewer capacity and connection permit will be made at that time. Ultimately, this sewage flow will be conveyed to the Hyperion Treatment Plant, which has sufficient capacity for the project.

Response to Comment No. 8-1

This letter, dated June 18, 2008, was actually provided in response to the Notice of Preparation, rather than the Draft EIR, but was not received by the City until after the Draft EIR had been circulated for public review. As such, it does not question the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. In response to the Environmental Review Section’s request for information, the Bureau of Sanitation obtained gauging data for the sewer lines that would serve the Proposed Project and states that all are assumed to have available capacity. The letter also confirms that the Hyperion Treatment Plant has sufficient capacity for the Project. The text of the Draft EIR (section IV.M.1, Wastewater) has been revised to reflect the information in this letter. The revised numbers do not represent substantial new information and do not change the conclusion of the Draft EIR.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-21 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 9

Brent Lorscheider, Acting Division Manager, City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation, Wastewater Engineering Services Division

Comment No. 9-1

Projected Wastewater Discharges for the Proposed Project:

SEWER AVAILABILITY

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-22 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Clinton St. is 24.09 million Gallons per Day, for the 36-inch line on Melrose Ave. is 11.32 million Gallons per Day, and for the 72-inch line is 95.09 million Gallons per Day.

Response to Comment No. 9-1

This letter, dated June 12, 2008, which is the same as Letter No. 8, was provided in response to the Notice of Preparation rather than the Draft EIR, and was not received by the City until after the Draft EIR had been circulated for public review. As such, it does not question the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. In response to the Environmental Review Section’s request for information, the Bureau of Sanitation obtained gauging data for the sewer lines that would serve the Proposed Project and states that all are assumed to have available capacity. The letter also confirms that the Hyperion Treatment Plant has sufficient capacity for the Project. The text of the Draft EIR (section IV.M.1, Wastewater) has been revised to reflect the information in this letter. The revised numbers do not represent substantial new information and do not change the conclusion of the Draft EIR.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-23 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 10

Rowena Lau, Environmental Engineering Associate, City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation, Wastewater Engineering Services Division

Comment No. 10-1

I am currently reviewing the NOP for the project stated above.

I have noticed that the BOS responses have not been included in the appendix. Please inform the developers to have that included in the EIR. Also, the project description has been slightly changed from our original response. Another BOS response will be sent soon with the updated project description. Thank you!

Response to Comment No. 10-1

This letter states that the commenter is reviewing the NOP for the Proposed Project. The commenter may have meant to say the Draft EIR since it was circulated for public review prior to June 17, 2008 and it is the Draft EIR that has technical appendices. The letter also includes an attached NOP response letter that is dated May 7, 2008. The May 7, 2008 letter was not included in Appendix B (Responses to the NOP) of the Draft EIR since it was received after the close of the NOP comment period and after the Draft EIR had been sent out to print. This letter is, however, part of the administrative record for the Project and is included as part of this Final EIR.

The Project originally included 221 apartment units and the impacts of the original project were evaluated in an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. The project was subsequently revised to provide 219 apartment units and the revised project is the subject of the Draft EIR. The description of the Proposed Project in both the NOP and the Draft EIR are consistent and the Project assumptions in the three letters submitted by the BOS are also consistent.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-24 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 11

Michael Theule, City of Los Angeles Fire Department

Comment No. 11-1

I have reviewed this project for Inspector McClain and have determined that all Fire Department concerns can be met with the future site plan review at our office. No other conditions will be required from the Fire Department at this time.

Response to Comment No. 11-1

This comment states that all Fire Department concerns can be met with the future site plan review and that no other conditions will be required from the Fire Department at this time. The comment does not question the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-25 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 12

Michael A. Shull, Superintendent, City of Los Angeles, Department of Recreation and Parks

Comment No. 12-1

The following information has been prepared in response to your request for comments relative to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the La Brea Gateway Project. The project proposes the development of 219 apartment units, and 35,000 square feet of retail space, on a 2.27 acre project site, located in the Hollywood community of the City of Los Angeles.

The proposed project would generate an increase in demand for park and recreational facilities. Measures to mitigate impacts to Recreation and Park facilities and alleviate the impact of new residents on the community are essential. Options that may mitigate the impact to park and recreational facilities and reduce the needs of residents of the proposed project include: developing additional recreational and park amenities within the proposed site; paying Park fees to improve existing facilities in the project area, expand existing park sites, or add new sites; and offering a local shuttle service or vans to transport residents to recreation and park sites. The payment of Park fees alone would not fully mitigate the proposed project's impact on the City's parks and recreational facilities, nor reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide information relative to the proposed project's impact on recreation and park services. As this project proposes to incorporate recreational features into the project design, the Department requests that the project applicant meet with Department staff as soon as possible to review park land / recreation facility options for the proposed project. Please contact Camille Walls, at (213) 928-9196 or Melinda Gejer, at (213) 928-9136 to arrange a meeting to discuss this project.

Response to Comment No. 12-1

The commenter states that options to mitigate the impact to park and recreational facilities include the development of additional recreational and park amenities within the proposed site and through the payment of Park fees, among other things. As discussed on page III-14 of the Draft EIR, the residential component of the Project would provide 27,550 square feet of access space for such areas as common hallways, deck, and pool area; and 3,500 square feet of common area. This common area facility would be located on the ground level and consist of the primary residential entrance, building office, lounge, and fitness center. Figures III-11 and III-12 of the Draft EIR illustrate the landscaped common podium deck areas. The outdoor and indoor common areas would help to address the recreational, leisure, and fitness demands of Project residents. These amenities are not, however, taken into account while considering the potential demand for public parkland by Project residents. The Draft EIR assumes that this demand will be addressed through the payment of all applicable Recreation and Park fees. Payment of these fees would mitigate the residual impacts of the project that may not be met by these on-site amenities.

Additionally, the Project has pedestrian access to the Poinsettia Recreation Center, which is located two blocks west of the Project site, well within feasible walking distance.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-26 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

The City will encourage the Project applicant to meet with representatives of the Department of Recreation and Parks prior to approval of the Project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-27 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 13a

Mike Bagheri, Transportation Engineer, City of Los Angeles, Department of Transportation

Comment No. 13a-1

The Department of Transportation (DOT) has reviewed the traffic study, prepared by traffic consultant Overland Traffic Consultants, dated August 2007, for a proposed mixed-use project, located at the northwest corner of La Brea Avenue and Willoughby Avenue. The study analyzed 16 intersections. Based on DOT's current traffic impact criteria,1 the proposed project will create significant traffics [sic] impacts at two of the studied locations (Attachment 1). Except as noted, the study adequately evaluated the project-related traffic impacts on the surrounding community.

Response to Comment No. 13a-1

This paragraph summarizes the information provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix H to the Draft EIR) and the comment letter, and states that the Traffic Impact Analysis adequately evaluated the project-related traffic impacts on the surrounding community except as noted. The responses to the comments raised in this letter are provided in the Responses to Comment Nos. 13a-2 through 13a-11.

Comment No. 13a-2

The proposed project consists of constructing 219 apartment units and a 35,000 square foot (SF) market. The site is currently occupied by an existing television studio and office, which will be demolished. The project will provide a total of 542 parking spaces in a parking structure with two subterranean levels and two levels above grade. Access to the residential portion of the parking is proposed to be via two driveways on Willoughby Avenue, a one-way driveway on La Brea Avenue (right-turn ingress only), and one driveway on Romaine Street. Service vehicles are proposed to use the driveway off of La Brea Avenue. No vehicles shall back into or out of any of the proposed driveways. The project is expected to be complete by year 2010.

Response to Comment No. 13a-2

This paragraph summarizes the description of the Proposed Project. It does not question the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR.

1 Per the DOT Traffic Study Polices and Procedures Revised March, 2002, a significant impact is identified as an increase in the Critical Movement Analysis (CMA) value, due to project related traffic, of 0.010 or more when the final ("with project") Level of Service (LOS) is LOS E or F; an increase of 0.020 or more when the final LOS is LOS 0; or an increase of 0.040 or more when the final LOS is LOS C.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-28 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment No. 13a-3

The project will generate approximately 2,956 net daily trips with 106 net trips in the AM peak hour and 279 net trips in the PM peak hour (see Attachment 2).

Response to Comment No. 13a-3

This sentence summarizes the vehicle trip generation estimates for the Proposed Project. It does not question the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR.

Comment No. 13a-4

The proposed project will have significant traffic impacts at the following locations:

1) La Brea Avenue and Willoughby Avenue 2) La Brea Avenue and Romaine Street

Response to Comment No. 13a-4

This statement summarizes the Project-related intersection impacts that would occur prior to the implementation of mitigation measures. It does not question the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR.

Comment No. 13a-5

Widen the north side of Willoughby Avenue by 5 feet along the project frontage, from La Brea Avenue west to the driveway opposite Detroit Street, and restripe the intersection of La Brea Avenue and Willoughby Avenue to allow for an eastbound defacto right-turn only lane. The proposed mitigation is acceptable to DOT only if an additional 5 foot sidewalk easement is provided to maintain a sidewalk width 15 feet. The improvement will mitigate the impact to a level of insignificance.

Response to Comment No. 13a-5

The Project applicant is proposing a 12-foot sidewalk on the north side of Willoughby Avenue to be consistent with the City-wide standard for 12-foot sidewalk width for major arterials in lieu of the current 10-foot side walk standard for local streets. It is recommend that a new 2 foot sidewalk easement be provided on the north side of Willoughby Avenue and La Brea Avenue moving west to the east side of Detroit Street. This will allow for the planned 5-foot street widening along this section of the north side of Willoughby Avenue and maintain a 12-foot wide sidewalk area with landscaping elements to enhance the pedestrian walk area. Final design approval of the sidewalk area and landscaping elements will be subject to the Director of Planning approval in consultation with Council’s Office and Department of Transportation. See Comment No. 13b-2. The 12-foot sidewalk is consistent with the LADOT’s current recommendation for this location.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-29 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment No. 13a-6

Widen the south side of Romaine Street by 3 feet west of La Brea Avenue for approximately 100 feet to allow for an eastbound defacto right-turn only lane at the intersection. While the proposed improvement would mitigate the impact, DOT is opposed to the proposed mitigation due to the creation of the secondary impact of narrowing the existing sidewalk.

Response to Comment No. 13a-6

The commenter agrees with the conclusion in the Draft EIR that the proposed mitigation would mitigate the potential peak hour traffic impact at the intersection of La Brea Avenue and Romaine Street. However, the correct widening being recommended is 5 feet not 3 feet as stated. Although the mitigation would create a secondary impact as noted by the commenter by reducing the width of the sidewalk, the impact would be less than significant as the existing 12-foot wide sidewalk would be reduced to seven feet in width. Since Romaine Street is designated as a non-continuous local street with very low volume of pedestrian traffic, the reduced sidewalk width on the south side would still satisfy the City’s ADA standard for sidewalk width and can be accepted as a viable traffic mitigation measure.

Comment No. 13a-9 states that the City may substitute an alternative measure of an equivalent effectiveness for any improvement (mitigation measure) that does not receive the required approval,. The alternative mitigation measure for the intersection of Romaine Street and La Brea Avenue is the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM) for the project to reduce traffic generated by the project. The TDM program will be submitted for review and approval to the Planning Director and LADOT prior to requesting a building permit. The plan shall consider the highest and best uses of parking and shall encourage mass transit and will include an employee and resident transit subsidy and car pooling plan, including samples of written information to be provided to employees/residents and how the information will be disseminated. The plan may provide for subsidized public transit passes or other legal tender to employees/residents who commute by public transit to and from work.

Comment No. 13a-7

DOT recommends that a construction work site traffic control plan be submitted to DOT for review and approval prior to the start of any construction work. The plan should show the location of any roadway or sidewalk closures, traffic detours, haul routes, hours of operation, protective devices, warning signs and access to abutting properties. DOT also recommends that all construction related traffic be restricted to off-peak hours.

Response to Comment No. 13a-7

Mitigation Measure L-1 requires the Project developer to develop and implement a Work Area Traffic Control Plan approved by LADOT.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-30 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment No. 13a-8

La Brea Avenue is classified as a Major Highway Class II which requires a 40-foot half-width roadway on a 52-foot half-width right-of-way.

Willoughby Avenue is classified as a Local Street which requires a 20-foot half-width roadway on a 30- foot half-width right-of-way. DOT recommends a 5-foot widening and a 5-foot sidewalk easement along the project frontage. This improvement is needed to mitigate a significant impact of the project.

It appears that highway dedication and street widening may be required for the proposed project. The developer must check with the Bureau of Engineering (BOE) Land Development Group to determine the highway dedication, street widening and sidewalk requirements for the project.

Response to Comment No. 13a-8

The City of Los Angeles is currently modifying the street standards as part of the Hollywood Community Plan update. The Project will be consistent with those standards and the Project applicant and traffic engineer have been in contact with City staff regarding the future adopted street requirements. Also see the Responses to Comment Nos. 13a-5 and 13b-3 regarding the proposed 2-foot easement along Willoughby Avenue.

Comment No. 13a-9

Unless otherwise specified, the proposed mitigation measure shall be implemented through the Bureau of Engineering (BOE) B-Permit process. Construction of the improvements to the satisfaction of DOT and BOE must be completed before issuance of any certificate of occupancy. Should any improvement not receive required approval, the City may substitute an alternative measure of an equivalent effectiveness. Prior to setting the bond amount, BOE shall require that the developer's engineer or contractor contact DOT's B-Permit Coordinator, telephone (213) 928-9663, to arrange a pre-design meeting to finalize the proposed design needed for the project.

Response to Comment No. 13a-9

The Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Section V of this Final EIR) identifies all mitigation measures that would be implemented, the monitoring phase, enforcement agency, and monitoring agency. All traffic- related mitigation measures are subject to enforcement and monitoring by the Department of Transportation.

Comment No. 13a-10

As noted previously, the proposed project will provide 542 parking spaces. The developer should also check with the Department of Building and Safety on the number of Code required parking spaces needed for the project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-31 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Response to Comment No. 13a-10

As stated on page IV.L-22 of the Draft EIR, a total of 140 on-site parking spaces would be required for the proposed 35,000 square-foot retail component of the Project based on the City of Los Angeles’ standard of 4 spaces for every 1,000 square feet of retail space, The Project applicant is proposing a total of 140 parking spaces for retail patrons and employees. A minimum of 402 stalls are proposed for the residential component of the Project. This is the amount of residential parking space required by the City for the Proposed Project (apartments) based on one space for each studio unit (28 spaces), 1.5 spaces for each 1-bedroom unit (180 spaces), two spaces for each 2-bedroom unit (146 spaces), and 55 guest parking spaces. Therefore, the Proposed Project would comply with the parking requirements and any parking- related impacts would be less than significant.

Comment No. 13a-11

The review of this study does not constitute approval of the driveway access and circulation scheme. Those require separate review and approval and should be coordinated as soon as possible with DOT's Citywide Planning Coordination Section (201 N. Figueroa Street, 4th Floor, Station 3, @ 213-482-7024) to avoid delays in the building permit approval process. In order to minimize and prevent last minute building design changes, it is highly imperative that the applicant, prior to the commencement of building or parking layout design efforts, contact DOT for driveway width and internal circulation requirements so that such traffic flow considerations are designed and incorporated early into the building and parking layout plans to avoid any unnecessary time delays and potential costs associated with late design changes. All driveways should be Case 2 driveways and 30 feet and 18 feet wide for two-way and one-way operations, respectively. The proposed driveway on La Brea should restricted to right-turn ingress/egress only. The site plan is attached (Attachment 5).

Response to Comment No. 13a-11

The Project applicant will work with the City throughout the building design review process to ensure that the Project meets all City requirements for driveway access and circulation.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-32 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 13b

Tomas Carranza, Senior Transportation Engineer, City of Los Angeles, Department of Transportation

Comment No. 13b-1

On May 2, 2008, the Department of Transportation (DOT) issued a traffic impact assessment report on the proposed mixed-use project at the northwest corner of La Brea Avenue and Willoughby Avenue. The proposed project, known as the La Brea Gateway project, consists of constructing 219 apartment units and 35,000 square-feet of retail space. The site is currently occupied by television studio and office space that will be demolished to accommodate the project.

The purpose of this memorandum is to revise two project requirements that were identified in DOT’s original May 2, 2008 assessment. The results and findings of the original traffic study have not changed and are still valid. Also the requirements from DOT’s original report (attached for reference) relative to construction impacts, parking, and driveway access shall remain in effect. However, please revise two of the original project requirements as follows:

Response to Comment No. 13b-1

The responses to the original comment letter provided by LADOT are provided in the Responses to Comment Nos. 13a-2 through 13a-11. The two revised requirements are addressed in the Responses to Comment Nos. 13b-2 and 13b-3.

Comment No. 13b-2

The applicant is still required to implement the intersection mitigation at La Brea Avenue and Willoughby Avenue. However, instead of providing an additional easement to accommodate a 15-foot wide sidewalk/parkway along Willoughby Avenue, DOT recommends that the applicant provide, either through highway dedication or public easement, a minimum 12-foot wide sidewalk/parkway along the project’s Willoughby Avenue frontage.

Response to Comment No. 13b-2

See the Response to Comment No. 13a-5. The 12-foot sidewalk now proposed for the Project at this location is consistent with the LADOT’s current requirement.

Comment No. 13b-3

Originally, DOT opposed the proposed mitigation measure at the intersection of La Brea Avenue and Romaine Street because it required that the sidewalk along the south side of Romaine Avenue [sic] west of La Brea Avenue be narrowed. However, DOT supports the proposed mitigation at this intersection provided that future land use projects along the south side of Romaine Avenue [sic] west of La Brea Avenue provide the necessary dedication to restore a minimum 12-foot-wide sidewalk. The mitigation measure at this intersection would

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-33 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

widen the south side of Romaine Street west of La Brea Avenue to accommodate an eastbound right-turn only lane.

Response to Comment No. 13b-3

This is a recommendation that the City could implement in the future when any land use projects are proposed for the affected parcels of land. However, it is not known when or if any such project would be proposed and it is beyond the authority of this EIR to implement this condition for land that is not owned by the Project applicant. Therefore, Mitigation Measure L-3 has been revised in this Final EIR to also include an alternative mitigation measure to require a Project-wide Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce the traffic generated by the Project if the recommended measure to widen Romaine is determined to be infeasible. See the Response to Comment No. 13a-6. As an alternative mitigation measure, implementation of the TDM program would eliminate the need for any physical improvements along the southern side of Romaine Street west of La Brea Avenue.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-34 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 14

Arturo Martinez, President, Melrose Neighborhood Association

Comment No. 14-1

In advocating that the City was required by State law to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for this project, the Melrose Neighborhood Association (MNA) hoped that the City Staff responsible for the preparation of the Draft document would acknowledge the obvious issues that the proposed project presents with regard to height, bulk, traffic and land use and that they would prepare a report that makes clear the impacts associated with those issues.

Sadly, the draft report we have been provided to review fails to acknowledge any inconsistency between a seven story 235,000 sf residential development on very scarce industrial land which dumps the majority of its traffic on an already congested two lane local street, across the street from a one and two story single family and small apartment community.

In the thirty plus years the MNA has been acting as a watchdog for the community interest, we have never seen a situation where all of the planning documents in the City's arsenal argue squarely against such a project, yet the DEIR manages to make it seem as if the complex will be more of a mirage than a major real estate development.

Hence, we find the Draft Environmental Impact Report as submitted for public review to be inadequate in assessing the potential impacts associated with the subject property, for the reasons discussed in the following commentary.

Response to Comment No. 14-1

This letter raises issues with respect to alternatives, aesthetics (height and bulk), historic resources, land use, population and housing, transportation/traffic and urban decay, but does not provide any factual support for the issues it raises. Nevertheless, the Responses to Comment Nos. 14-2 through 14-59 address these issues. Based on the comments provided in this letter as well as the associated responses to these comments, the City of Los Angeles has complied with the requirements of CEQA and the conclusions of the Draft EIR continue to be applicable to the Proposed Project.

Comment No. 14-2

It appears that the staff drafting the document are seeking to undermine the credibility of the effort from the initial paragraph. The stated geography locating the site is as follows: "located at the northwest comer of La Brea Avenue and Willoughby Avenue at the confluence of the Mid-Wilshire, Hancock Park, and West Hollywood districts of the City of Los Angeles."

First, and foremost, the site is located within the Hollywood Community Planning area of the City. It is several miles removed from the "Mid Wilshire" Community which is commonly understood to be centered along Wilshire Boulevard between Normandie and Wilton. The Hancock Park residential area is

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-35 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

a bit closer, formally described as the area between Highland, Rosewood, Rossmore and Wilshire. West Hollywood is adjacent to the site, but it is a separately incorporated municipality, not a district of the City of Los Angeles as claimed by the authors of the draft document.

Most importantly, the site is, and has historically been, a part of the Hollywood Industrial Core, which is a swath of land running along both sides of Santa Monica Boulevard bounded roughly by Willoughby, Poinsettia, Lexington and Vine. It is shown in light blue on the City's General Plan Map below:

Note that the white area to the north and west of the Subject Site is in the City of West Hollywood. The light industrial land use continues north and westerly of the subject site into West Hollywood, encompassing the what was the original Warner Brothers Hollywood Studio and is now know [sic] simply as "The Lot". Please also note that the blue/green land use designation immediately to the west of the subject site is actually a major DWP electrical transmission/distribution sub-station, supplying power to a wide area, including the adjacent industrial and studio uses.

In order for the document to meet the standards of Section l5l2l(a) and 15362 of the Guidelines for CEQA the document must first provide accurate information to the decision makers. If the very first paragraph of the draft is very clearly skewed to make the site appear to be located somewhere it isn't, can the rest of the document be taken at face value?

It is the position of the Melrose Neighborhood Association (MNA) that the document must make crystal clear that the project is located in the industrial core area of Hollywood, not in a make believe location called "the confluence of the Mid-Wilshire, Hancock Park, and West Hollywood districts of the City of Los Angeles".

Response to Comment No. 14-2

Based on this comment, the text on page I-1 of the Draft EIR has been revised (see Section III, Corrections and Additions) to read:

The purpose of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is to inform decision makers and the general public of the potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed La Brea Gateway project (Proposed Project or Project), a mixed-use project proposed to be located at the northwest corner of La Brea Avenue and Willoughby Avenue in the Hollywood district of the City of Los Angeles. The Project applicant is La Brea Gateway, LLC, 101 South La Brea Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90036. A detailed description of the Proposed Project is contained in Section II, Project Description, of this Draft EIR.

The text on page II-1 of the Draft EIR has been revised (see Section III, Corrections and Additions) to read:

The Proposed Project site is located at the northwest corner of La Brea Avenue and Willoughby Avenue in the Hollywood district of the City of Los Angeles and one block south of the City of West Hollywood (see Figure II-1, Regional Location Map and Figure II-2, Project Location

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-36 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Map). As illustrated in Figure II-2, the Project site is approximately two blocks south of Santa Monica Boulevard, and three blocks north of Melrose Avenue. The block that includes the Project site is surrounded by Romaine Street on the north, Willoughby Avenue on the south, La Brea Avenue on the east, and Formosa Avenue on the west.

The text on page IV.B-1-1 of the Draft EIR has been revised (see Section III, Corrections and Additions) to read:

The Proposed Project site is located in a highly urbanized area at the northwest corner of La Brea Avenue and Willoughby Avenue in the Hollywood district of the City of Los Angeles and one block south of the City of West Hollywood. The Proposed Project site consists of six separate parcels, totaling 99,150 square feet (2.27 acres) of land. The site is currently developed with a 2- story office/studio building, a single-story office building, a guard shack and a small accessory building. A solid masonry wall with a height of approximately six feet is located along the southern perimeter of the site. Six satellite communication dishes are located on the rooftop of the office/studio building and three satellite communication dishes are mounted on the ground within the site. These facilities were adapted for use by KCOP Channel 13, which operated a television broadcast studio facility at the site from 1960 to 2003, and have been intermittently leased out since that time for short-term film studio production and post-production work. The site has minimal landscaping and the overall visual characteristics are reminiscent of a property that is deemed antiquated. Vehicular access to the site is presently provided by three gated driveways along Willoughby Avenue. A 20-foot-wide alleyway extends to a fourth gated exit at Romaine Street. Pedestrian access is provided by paved sidewalks on each of the surrounding streets. Refer to Figure II-6 through Figure II-8 for a photograph location map and existing views of the Project site.

Neither the City of Los Angeles General Plan, the Framework Element of the City of Los Angeles General Plan, nor the Hollywood Community Plan identify a designated “industrial core area of Hollywood.” No further revisions to the project location discussions are warranted.

Comment No. 14-3

While each of the "Alternatives" is clearly described in terms of the number of square feet that would be developed in each case, the total number of square feet contained in the "Proposed Project" is missing. It does not appear to be an oversight because the actual number of square feet proposed (assuming an average of less than 1,000 sf per apartment unit) will be around 235,000 sf, which compares rather unfavorably with the 147,000 sf attributed to each of the alternatives.

Similarly, the description of the proposed project contained on page 1-4 carefully avoids mentioning the overall height of the proposal and the maximum number of stories being considered. By way of contrast, the draft goes out of its way a few paragraphs later to make sure the decision makers know that the alternatives would not be restricted by any height limit and that they are, therefore, assumed to be "multiple levels with a maximum height of 75 feet above grade".

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-37 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

The description of the "Proposed Project" in the Introduction on Page 1-4 should clearly state the number of square feet proposed to be constructed, including the square footage contained in the above ground parking structure, so that the decision makers and the public can clearly understand the size and scope of the project being proposed. The description of the project should also reference the absolute height of the proposal according to the requirements of the Zoning Code along with the maximum number of stories.

Response to Comment No. 14-3

The Project size (building square footage) discussed throughout the Draft EIR has been identified in accordance with City standards. The total square footage of 234,700 square feet is included in Table III-1 on page III-1 of the Project Description. Neither the description of the Proposed Project nor the descriptions of the potential alternatives includes the floor area of the parking areas as these customarily are not taken into consideration when evaluating allowable building floor area. The descriptions of the Proposed Project and alternatives are consistent. Additional information regarding the Proposed Project, such as building height, is provided in Section III, Project Description of the Draft EIR, which includes Site Development Elevations in Figure III-8 and Figure III-9 showing the scale of the proposed buildings.

Comment No. 14-4

Potential studio uses of the property present a wide range of possible uses. The site would support 147,000 sf of space if the space were devoted to production offices. The likely scenario, based on recent building trends at local studio facilities, would be a series of three (3) four-story buildings, each having a footprint of about 12,500 square feet. That would cover about 50% of the total site area. It would be highly unlikely that any of the buildings would exceed four stories (or approximately 55 feet) in height.

Required parking per code at 2 cars per 1,000 square feet (294 cars) could be accommodated in a single level below grade.

The actual project would probably be smaller. It would most likely be a balance of the total square footage supported by one level of below grade parking at a market demand rate closer to 4 spaces per 1,000 sf, using tandem and compact spaces to maximize the yield of the single level and including an area of surface parking as well.

The second scenario would involve a mix of active production space (including sound mixing, post production and special effects with support equipment storage and ancillary offices.) That scenario would probably yield considerably less than 147,000 sf since the model would spread the uses out over the site, minimizing the number of multi-story facilities. Again, possibly one structure would reach four stories, but the majority of the buildout would be one and two stories. A three level above ground parking structure may occupy a portion of the western end of the property under that scenario.

Response to Comment No. 14-4

There are many variations that could be assumed for each alternative to the Proposed Project. Since the Project applicant is not proposing the development of any alternative to the Proposed Project, the Draft

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-38 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

EIR provides a conservative analysis of the possible maximum development that could occur under the existing and alterative land use and zoning designations. It is reasonable to assume that an entity that would develop the Project site with new studio uses would maximize the development potential of the site, such as a large sound stage could be developed with offices on upper floors. The Draft EIR assumes an alternative that would comply with the limits of the MR1-1 zone.

As discussed on page VI-20 of the Draft EIR, the Studio Alternative would not result in any unavoidable significant environmental impacts after mitigation similar to the Proposed Project. However, this alternative would not implement several of the beneficial mitigation measures and design features that would otherwise be implemented by the Project. The same conclusions would be applicable to the alternative development scenarios recommended by the commenter.

Comment No. 14-5

The typical model today for light manufacturing/warehouse/distribution calls for single story facilities (potentially with office mezzanines), supported by surface parking the general goal would be to reach 60% coverage of the lot which would yield a project of roughly 60,000 sf. (There is a reason that the subject site currently holds 57,000 square feet of space.

Under certain scenarios, a light manufacturing use might have an antenna or other structure that exceeded two stories, but is unlikely that any actual light manufacturing use would go more than two stories.

The photo below shows the adaptive re-use of an existing building, on the same block as the subject site at 936 N. Formosa, for a new DMV service location. This site follows the coverage model based on a single story building covering about 60% of the lot area supported by surface parking.

Based on c. & d. as outlined above, it is the position of the MNA that the Alternatives B & C described in the draft document dramatically overstates the potential impacts associated with the potential use of the site for studio related uses or light manufacturing uses.

Response to Comment No. 14-5

There are many potential variations that could be assumed for each alternative to the Proposed Project. Since the Project applicant is not proposing the development of any alternative to the Proposed Project, the Draft EIR provides a conservative analysis of the possible maximum development that could occur at the Project site under the existing and alterative land use and zoning designations. It is reasonable to assume that an entity that would develop the Project site with new light industrial uses would maximize the development potential of the site. For example, a large manufacturing facility could be developed with offices on upper floors. The Draft EIR assumes an alternative that would comply with the limits of the MR1-1 zone.

As discussed on pages VI-34 and 35 of the Draft EIR, the Light Manufacturing Alternative would create potentially significant air quality (toxic air contaminants) issues, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise impacts that would not occur with the Proposed Project. This alternative would also have greater

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-39 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

negative aesthetic and solid waste impacts than the Proposed Project, although the resulting impact would continue to be less than significant. This alternative would also not implement several of the beneficial mitigation measures and design features that would otherwise be implemented by the Project. The same conclusions would be applicable to the alternative development scenarios recommended by the commenter.

Comment No. 14-6

The description of Alternative D states that the condominium building would occupy generally the same square footage as the subject proposal, but fails to callout what that square footage actually is.

Response to Comment No. 14-6

There are many variations that could be assumed for each alternative to the Proposed Project each of which could vary significantly in terms of square footage in terms of unit sizes and amount of common area. As a result the overall Project size in terms of square footage would vary significantly depending on overall design. Since the Project applicant is not proposing the development of any alternative to the Proposed Project, the Draft EIR provides a conservative analysis of the possible maximum development that could occur under the existing and alternative land use and zoning designations. It is reasonable to assume that an entity that would develop the Project site with new commercial and residential uses would maximize the development potential of the site.

The discussions on page I-5 of the Draft EIR represent a summary of the alternatives that are described in greater detail on Section VI, Alternatives to the Proposed Project. As discussed on page VI-35 of the Draft EIR, the Mixed-Use Condominium Alternative would include the same 35,000 square feet of retail space as the Proposed Project, but would provide 170 condominium units rather than the 219 apartment units of the Project. The condominium units would be larger than the Project’s apartment units and, as such, are assumed to be provided within approximately the same 199,700 square feet of building space as the residential component of the Project. Therefore, these buildings would be comprised of multiple levels with a maximum height of up to 75 feet above grade as allowed under the requested RAS4-1 zoning designation for the Project site. Since the buildings would be at least four stories in height, this alternative assumes that parking would be provided in a subterranean and above ground structure. The overall floor area of this alternative is not an important factor as impacts associated with residential development are largely evaluated based upon the number of units rather than the floor area of the building.

Comment No. 14-7

Again, the description of the RAS3 Alternative omits any mention of the actual square footage of the 123 unit building that would be sitting on top of the 35,000 sf retail structure.

The description provides conflicting information with regard to height. The paragraph states, like the prior paragraphs, that the proposal would feature "multiple levels with a maximum height of 75 feet above

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-40 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

grade". Then it goes on to state that "the buildings would be at up to four stories in height", without mentioning that the four story buildings would be sitting on top of a three story parking garage.

It is the position of the MNA that the draft document should clarify the exact absolute building heights in accord with the Zoning Code, and define the potential number of stories.

Response to Comment No. 14-7

As discussed on page VI-45 of the Draft EIR, the RAS3 Zone Alternative would include the same 35,000 square feet of retail space as the Proposed Project, but would provide 123 apartment units rather than the 219 units of the Project. These buildings could provide multiple levels with a maximum height of more than 75 feet above grade since there is no height limit in the RAS3-1 zone. Since the buildings would be up to four stories in height, this alternative assumes that parking would be provided in a subterranean and above ground structure. The overall floor area of this alternative is not an important factor as impacts associated with residential development are largely evaluated based upon the number of units rather than the floor area of the building.

Comment No. 14-8

In describing the subject project the draft states "Views of the Project would likely be available from more off-site locations than at present, as the Project would increase the height of buildings at the project site from approximately 27 feet to 75 feet. However, this increase is not considered to be substantial given the existing mix of uses in the project vicinity, including the four-story office building and the West Hollywood Gateway project located north of the site along La Brea Avenue."

The second sentence in this quotation is factually false. Between the landmark Mutual of Omaha Building at La Brea and Wilshire one and three-quarter miles to the south and the office complex at Hollywood Boulevard and La Brea over a half mile to the north of the subject site, there are exactly three structures which exceed two stories along the La Brea frontage. La Brea Avenue is essentially a one and two story streetscape, where the three slightly taller structures are clearly anomalies.

The image above clearly shows the context adjacent to the subject site to be a mix of one and two story retail and automotive related uses.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-41 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

The two images below depict the Mutual of Omaha Building (right) and the office complex at Hollywood Boulevard and La Brea which bookend a two and a half mile long stretch of La Brea clearly articulated by the prevailing lineal pattern of one and two story retail façades.

The two structures depicted on the next page are the only buildings along La Brea (along with the small office building discussed on page 10) which do not fit that established pattern of one and two story buildings):

These structures are clearly anomalies along the two and a quarter mile long frontage of La Brea between Wilshire Boulevard and Hollywood Boulevard.

The "four story office building" alluded to in Table I-I as quoted above and depicted here to the left measures only 50' in height, as opposed to the 75' height proposed for the subject project. Moreover, the footprint of this building is approximately 90' x 70' or 6,300 sf compared to approximately 90,000 sf for the footprint of the proposed project.

None of these three buildings crosses the alley line to the east. Each one is contained on the narrow lots fronting on La Brea and terminating at the alley in the rear. They are, therefore, limited to less than half a block in depth from the commercial frontage on La Brea In stark contrast, the proposed project would penetrate almost two full blocks to the east along Willoughby toward Formosa Avenue.

The West Hollywood Gateway project noted in the text within the Table is a two story retail project. It rises to a height of approximately 45' because each of the retail levels is a high ceiling (15' to 18') space.

It is the position of the MNA, based on the foregoing discussion, that the proposed increase in height to 75' would be a very substantial un-mitigated impact on the surrounding community and, in particular, on the existing La Brea one and two story streetscape that extends from Wilshire Boulevard to Hollywood Boulevard. The mitigation proposed (consisting solely of a landscape plan) is almost laughable in its inadequacy. In no way will a landscape plan obscure a 75' tall, seven level, 235,000 plus sf building.

Response to Comment No. 14-8

The Project would be taller than the majority of buildings in the local vicinity, but that fact alone does not equate to the proposed use being inconsistent or incompatible with existing nearby uses or that the aesthetic impact being significant. As stated in the comment, there are in fact tall buildings currently along La Brea Avenue, some of which are actually taller than the Proposed Project. However, again, the fact alone that these buildings may be few in number does not mean that they are anomalies. Nor does it constitute a significant impact on nearby uses.

As discussed on pages IV.B-6 and IV.B-7 of the Draft EIR, the Project would transform the site to an integrated part of the urban fabric of the area. However, the increase in height is not considered to be substantial given the existing mix of uses within the Project vicinity, including the four-story office building and the West Hollywood Gateway project located north of the site along La Brea Avenue. The Proposed Project would be consistent and compatible with the surrounding existing uses as it is a mixed-

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-42 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

use retail/residential land use similar in height and scale to the neighboring properties. The Proposed Project includes townhouse apartments along the Willoughby Avenue side and reduced heights to 37 feet, gradually stepping back to the north, rising to 55 feet and then to 65 feet on the north side of the Project site to respond to the residential character of the neighborhood across Willoughby Avenue and to integrate with the commercial uses to the north.

Currently, the appearance of the Project site, as viewed from the residential development located immediately south of Willoughby Avenue consists of mostly vacant two-story commercial buildings, satellite dishes, and a large billboard. The Proposed Project would replace this view with a building face, articulated by varying façades and setbacks, up to 75 feet in height (see Draft EIR Figure III-8). On the residential levels, setbacks to create open space and balcony areas would be provided. These open space areas would provide visual relief from the mass of the building. As viewed from the residential development to the south of the Proposed Project along Willoughby Avenue, this change would still substantially increase the sense of height and massing on-site. There would be limited change in views through the Project site from Detroit Street due to the increased distance of the viewer from the Project site. However, private views are not considered to be impacted if an adjacent proposed land use has the potential to block an existing desirable view, provided the proposed development is consistent with the underlying zoning and design guidelines for the site. There are no height restrictions under the existing zoning for the Project site.

Based on this information, the Draft EIR concludes that impacts related to the change in the visual appearance and character of the project site would be less than significant, as viewed from adjacent streets and the areas surrounding the project site.

Comment No. 14-9

The text within the Table goes on to state the "Project would be consistent and compatible with the surrounding existing uses as it is a mixed-use retai1/residential land use similar in height and scale to the neighboring properties. Furthermore, there are no height restrictions on the existing zoning for the Project site. The Proposed Project includes townhouse apartments along the Willoughby Avenue side and reduced heights to 37 feet, gradually stepping back to the north, rising to 55 feet and then to 65 feet on the north side of the Project site to respond to the residential character of the neighborhood across Willoughby Avenue and to integrate with the commercial uses to the north."

The first sentence in that quote is not an objective rendering of the facts. The proposed project, a seven story, 235,000 sf (not including the above ground parking structure), 219 unit apartment complex can in no way be considered "consistent" with the surrounding and existing uses. There are no other seven story buildings within half a mile of the subject site. There are no 200 plus unit apartment complexes within the Hollywood Industrial Core. In fact, there are no apartment complexes within the Hollywood Industrial Core.

The claim that the project is "a mixed use retail/residential land use similar in height and scale to the neighboring properties" is again factually false. As documented above, there are no structures of a similar height and scale anywhere in the vicinity of the subject site. With the exception of the smallish four story

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-43 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

office building on the La Brea frontage of the 900 block, the entire developed context of the proposed project is one and two stories in height. The block that the site sits on is configured with primarily light industrial uses (see the DMV photo above) and automotive related uses. The abutting community to the south is residential in a one and two story configuration, representing typical small lot development as shown in the illustration below. That illustration (taken from the earlier Initial Study and modified to add the residences across the street) shows the dramatic relationship between the proposed project on the right and the one story cottages facing the site on the south side of Willoughby. There is nothing even remotely close to the size and scale of the proposed project in the area.

There are only two complexes of similar size and use in the broader context of Hollywood, the Miracle Mile, the Fairfax District, West Hollywood and Hancock Park/Windsor Square. One is the Broadcast Center Apartments project built in the late 1980's on part of the Gilmore holdings at the intersection of Beverly Boulevard and The Grove Drive. See the photo comparison on the preceding page. Note that the rendering of the proposed project found in Figure III-9 appears to be deliberately truncated to avoid showing the 500' depth of the project along Willoughby Avenue (which is similar to the depth visible in the photo of the Broadcast Center along The Grove Drive).

The other similar complex is presently under construction at Wilshire Boulevard and Hauser Boulevard on the Miracle Mile (filling in the site of the old Coulter's Department store lost to demolition in the late 1970's).

The Draft goes on to state "Overall, the Project would transform the site to an integrated part of the urban fabric of the area. Impacts related to the change in the visual appearance and character of the project site would be less than significant, as viewed from adjacent streets and the areas surrounding the project site."

The MNA believes this statement to be false. The project will not be an integrated part of the urban fabric because it will juxtapose a large multi-family complex hard up against existing light industrial use immediately to the north of the subject site. It will insert a rather massive 75' tall building into a commercial strip where the prevailing height is comprised of one and two story low scale structures. It is the position of the MNA that the visual appearance and character of the proposed project would be a highly significant and unmitigated impact as viewed from the adjacent streets and the areas surrounding the site. The basic reason for this conclusion is that the proposed development is unlike anything else in the surrounding area in terms of height, bulk, use and configuration. As noted above, there are only two projects within the greater two mile radius, and neither one is physically near the subject site.

Response to Comment No. 14-9

See the Response to Comment No. 14-8.

Comment No. 14-10

In discussing the potential impact from neighboring properties to the south, the Draft states as follows:

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-44 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

"There would be limited change in views through the Project site from Detroit due to the increased distance of the viewer from the Project site. However, private views are not considered to be impacted if an adjacent proposed land use has the potential to block an existing desirable view, provided the proposed development is consistent with the underlying zoning and design guidelines for the site. There are no height restrictions under the existing zoning for the Project site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not represent a significant aesthetic impact from any properties located to the south of Willoughby Avenue."

The Melrose Neighborhood Association very specifically disagrees with the implication contained in that paragraph and with the conclusion drawn from the implication.

The paragraph clearly implies that the ''proposed project is consistent with the underlying zoning and design guidelines for the site." In fact, the proposed development is completely inconsistent with the underlying zoning designation which is MR-1 Restricted Light Industrial. Residential land uses are specifically prohibited in the MR-1 zone.

We understand the applicant is seeking a zone change to RAS which would render the project consistent. However, if you can assume that such a request will be granted and then start your analysis with that assumption in place, than the underlying impact analysis has absolutely no value and we need not comment on the rest of the Draft.

It is the position of the MNA that the proposed project is not at all consistent with the underlying zone MR-l and, therefore, the fact that the proposed project will clearly block desirable views from the properties south of Willoughby will be a seriously un-mitigated significant aesthetic impact.

The illustrations shown on the previous page clearly illustrate the nature of the impact looking north on Detroit Street toward the subject site. The elevation shown to depict the subject site is taken from the Initial Study originally prepared for the project and submitted to the City. The current elevation is similar in scope although it features minor additional setbacks to the left of the subject image.

The base photograph was taken to simulate a "one point perspective" such that elements in the plane of the photo appear flat as they would in an elevation drawing. The photo was then laid over the elevation submitted for the initial study as noted above. In order match the scale of the elevation to the photo, we carefully matched the height of the furthest car visible in the photo (on Willoughby) to the height of the vehicle shown in the entry way on the elevation. We believe the result is a reasonably accurate depiction of the severe impact of the seven story facade as it would appear from the one and two story residences that line Detroit Street.

The draft also states "There would be limited change in views through the Project site from Detroit due to the increased distance of the viewer from the Project site." It is the position of the MNA that this statement is clearly false, as demonstrated by the images on the prior page.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-45 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Response to Comment No. 14-10

The commenter is correct in stating that the Proposed Project is not consistent with the underlying MR1 zone. As discussed on page III-16 of the Draft EIR, the Project applicant is requesting a Zone Change from MR1-1 to the Residential/Accessory Services (RAS) 4-1 zone designation. It is a reasonable analytic approach and consistent with case law to assume that project applications will be granted to allow for the project development and therefore perform impact analysis based on consistency with such approvals.

As discussed on page IV.B-6 of the Draft EIR, currently the Project site, as viewed from residential area located immediately to the south of Willoughby Avenue, consists of mostly vacant two-story commercial buildings, satellite dishes, and a large billboard. Views are already severely limited due to the existing buildings, satellite dishes, and billboard. The Proposed Project would replace this view with a building face, articulated by varying façades and setbacks, with the overall building stepping up in stories and height to 75 feet on the north end of the site (see Figure III-8). On the residential levels, setbacks to create open space and balcony areas would be provided. These open space areas, located in proximity to Willoughby Avenue along the south side of the property close to residential dwellings in the area, would provide visual relief from the overall mass of the building. Even with the open spaces and setbacks, the Proposed Project would still substantially increase the sense of height and massing on-site with that impact decreasing the further from Willoughby along Detroit the viewer is located. Furthermore, private views are not considered to be impacted if an adjacent proposed land use has the potential to block an existing desirable view, provided the proposed development is consistent with the underlying zoning and design guidelines for the site. There are no height restrictions under the current and existing zoning for the Project site. Therefore, the Proposed Project and the design elements which include open space and setbacks along the south side of the property, would not represent a significant aesthetic impact from properties located to the south of Willoughby Avenue.

Comment No. 14-11

In discussing the views toward the Santa Monica Mountains the Draft states "views of the hills would continue to be available when looking north along La Brea and Formosa Avenues. Thus impacts associated with the blockage of views to the Hollywood Hills from Willoughby Avenue would be less than significant."

That statement completely ignores the potentially lost views of the mountains that are currently available from Detroit Street, as clearly illustrated on page 13 of this commentary, while dismissing the loss of the existing views from Willoughby as irrelevant.

It is the position of the MNA that the potential loss of views of the Santa Monica Mountains from Detroit Street would be a significant, un-mitigated aesthetic impact on the existing community immediately south of Willoughby.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-46 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Response to Comment No. 14-11

As shown in the materials provided by the commenter and as discussed on page IV.B-7 of the Draft EIR, distant views toward the Santa Monica Mountains (Hollywood Hills) available to pedestrians from the southern side of Willoughby Avenue would be blocked by the development of the Proposed Project. The same is true for parts of Detroit Street south of Willoughby Avenue. However, such views are already limited and intermittent due to the existing buildings, satellite dishes, and billboard at the Project site, as well as other multi-story commercial and retail buildings currently located along Santa Monica Boulevard, and are not considered an important visual characteristic associated with this area. Furthermore, views of the hills would continue to be available when looking north along La Brea and Formosa Avenues. Thus impacts associated with the blockage of views to the Hollywood Hills from Willoughby Avenue would be less than significant.

Comment No. 14-12

See the discussion on Add Areas.

Response to Comment No. 14-12

No comments on the Add Area analysis are provided in this comment letter.

Comment No. 14-13

The Draft states that the former site of KCOP is not eligible for listing on the National Register because it was developed in 1960 and, therefore, does not meet the minimum 50 year age requirement. Given the fact that the site is 48 years old, the MNA believes the site may be eligible for a waiver on the basis of the potential for immediate demolition.

Even though the site is not the original location of KCOP, it was the primary location of the station for almost 40 years, during the prime development of television as a mass media in Los Angeles. As such, we believe that the site has the potential to be listed on the California Register. MNA, however, has not completed a historic resources survey of the subject site at this time. We reserve the right to submit additional information in this regard as it becomes available.

Response to Comment No. 14-13

A Historic Resources Report was prepared for the Project site and is included as Appendix D to the Draft EIR. The Cultural Resources section (Section IV.D) of the Draft EIR is based on the Historic Resources Report.

As discussed on pages 6 and 7 of the Historic Resources Report and on page IV.D-4 of the Draft EIR, properties do not necessarily need to be at least 50 years of age to be eligible for listing in the California Register. It must be demonstrated, however, that sufficient time has passed to understand their historical importance. There is a considerable body of knowledge on the history of television in Los Angeles available to find that the former KCOP studios are not significant in this context. An evaluation of

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-47 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

eligibility for listing in the California Register is provided on pages 6 through 11 of the Historic Resources Report and pages IV.D-5 and IV.D-6 of the Draft EIR, which concludes that existing facilities at the site are ineligible.

Comment No. 14-14

The Draft states that the project will not result in substantial growth in the City or Sub-region and would be consistent with SCAG's growth projections. Since the land is currently planned for industrial use, we believe the growth represented by the 219 unit complex is not consistent with SCAG's growth projections.

The Draft states "The Project applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation for the Project site from Limited Manufacturing to Neighborhood Commercial. A change in the land use designation to Neighborhood Commercial would be consistent with uses surrounding the Project and would be consistent with the general commercial nature of the La Brea corridor"

That statement presents the crux of our concerns with the Proposed Project. The MNA and its advocates have made our concerns with the land use conflict inherent in this project known to the City and to the Developer over the past year and a half, yet the DEIR continues to treat the fact that the Project as proposed is entirely inconsistent with the underlying industrial land use designation and zoning classification as an inconvenient nuisance. Let alone the direct conflict between the Project and the abutting low scale residences to the south and the remaining light industrial uses to the north.

It is the position of the MNA that the draft statement above is factually false. A land use designation change to Neighborhood Commercial would not be consistent with uses surrounding the site and would not be consistent with the general commercial nature of the La Brea Corridor.

Response to Comment No. 14-14

SCAG population projections are based on regional growth and not site-specific land use designations.

The commenter is correct in stating that the Proposed Project is not consistent with the existing underlying land use and zoning designations for the Project site. As discussed on page III-16 of the Draft EIR, the Project applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment from Limited Manufacturing to Neighborhood Commercial and a Zone Change from MR1-1 to the Residential/Accessory Services (RAS) 4-1 zone designation. The proposed Neighborhood Commercial land use designation would be consistent with the commercial nature of La Brea Avenue once approved.

Comment No. 14-15

It is obvious to anyone walking the perimeter of the site that a seven level, 75' tall building will not be consistent with the existing one story residences which face the site directly across Willoughby, between Detroit and Formosa. No amount of facade articulation and minor setbacks at the upper levels can disguise the gross inconsistency between the masses of the buildings that would face each other on opposite sides of a narrow 30' wide local street, as shown on the illustration at the bottom of page 10 of

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-48 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

this commentary. Moving east, the 20' tall automotive uses and two story apartments will be dwarfed by the mass of the proposed project. This isn't a close call or slight subjective interpretation. This is a clear and obvious juxtaposition of the mass of an un-interrupted seven story monolith against the historic fabric of a low scale, low intensity community.

The issues presented on the north side of the proposed building are similarly compelling. The existing light industrial development over the remainder of the block is one story in height and project about a 50% land coverage (see the DMV installation pictured in the prior section). The only anomaly is the small 4 story office building (with a footprint of approximately 6,300 sf) pictured in the earlier section. Clearly, the development of a seven level multi-family residential complex immediately abutting this development pattern is in no way consistent.

Response to Comment No. 14-15

As discussed on page IV.H-4 of the Draft EIR, the properties to the south of the Project site along Willoughby Avenue are zoned [Q] R3-XL (Multiple Dwelling). This is considered to be a medium intensity residential area. The Project would be taller than the majority of buildings in the local vicinity, but that fact alone does not equate to the proposed use being inconsistent or incompatible with existing nearby uses. Although the residential density of the Project would be greater than the nearby neighborhood, the commercial and residential uses would be compatible with existing, surrounding nearby commercial, residential, and industrial uses.

Comment No. 14-16

The Draft references the "general commercial nature of La Brea Corridor". As noted in the previous section, the La Brea Corridor is a two and one quarter mile long stretch of one and two story retail facades between Wilshire Boulevard on the south and Hollywood Boulevard on the north. It is critical to understand that the "commercial nature" occupies a strip of land 125' deep on each side of the street, backed up by an open alley. If the proposed Neighborhood Commercial land use designation were confined to the 125' lots between the alley line and the La Brea frontage, the argument might have some merit. Instead, the applicants are seeking to extend the Neighborhood Commercial designation 500' west along Willoughby which is definitely not a commercial street. That action is in no way consistent with any land use pattern along La Brea. (Note that the West Hollywood Gateway project to the north in the City of West Hollywood fronts on two major highways, La Brea and Santa Monica Boulevard, where the secondary frontage for the subject site is provided by Willoughby, a local street, which provides a only a single travel lane in each direction.)

It is the position of the MNA that the proposed change in land use designation is not in any way consistent ''with the general commercial nature of the La Brea corridor" due to the fact the request is for much more than the portion of the site that would be considered to lie within the "La Brea corridor". It appears to us that the only reason for seeking to change the entire site to Neighborhood Commercial would be to avoid having o [sic] designate the rear portion of the site as multi-family which would serve to highlight the underlying conflict with the abutting industrial use.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-49 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Response to Comment No. 14-16

Typically, commercial uses along the corridor are those that face directly on to La Brea Avenue. In most cases, the commercial designation extends to alleyways directly behind the commercial buildings, which run parallel to La Brea. A combination of La Brea Avenue, the alleyways running parallel to La Brea to the east and west, and the roadways that perpendicularly bisect La Brea provide access to these commercial uses. In addition, in other areas along La Brea Avenue areas such as the blocks from De Longpre Avenue to Sunset Boulevard and Hawthorne Avenue to Yucca Street, the commercial designation includes entire city blocks. A portion of the Project site on the north side includes an alleyway running to Romaine and on the south side of the Project site along Willoughby Avenue where no alleyway exists. Additionally, the commercial corridor along La Brea extends south of Wilshire Boulevard another 1.2 miles to Venice Boulevard. The commercial corridor does not end at Wilshire. The Project applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment for the Project site consistent with current usage to the north, northwest, and west of the site, not any other parts of the block or area where typical commercial properties have an alleyway directly behind the entire portion of their property.

Comment No. 14-17

Curiously, the DEIR summary table of impacts is silent with regard to the Hollywood Community Plan. The Community Plan calls for "Designating land for industrial development that can be used without detriment to adjacent uses of other types." The subject site has long been designated as an industrial site and has not been detrimental to the adjacent single family and low density multifamily residential uses. The proposed project is not consistent with this Plan policy.

Response to Comment No. 14-17

As discussed on page IV.H-8 of the Draft EIR, the City of Los Angeles General Plan contains numerous goals, policies, and objectives to guide development and uses planned within the City. Existence of an inconsistency between a proposed project and an applicable general plan is a legal determination, vested in the City Council and subject to court review if challenged. Inconsistency itself is not an impact under CEQA – plan inconsistencies in and of themselves are not significant impacts on the environment under CEQA. The City of Los Angeles’ Hollywood Community Plan’s identified objectives and their applicability to the Proposed Project are discussed in Table IV.H-1 on pages IV.H-9 and IV.H-10 of the Draft EIR.

An objective of the Hollywood Community Plan is the “designation of land for industrial development that can be so used without detriment to adjacent uses of other types, and imposing restrictions on the types and intensities of industrial uses as are necessary to this purpose.” This means that industrial uses operating within industrial areas should not be subject to restrictions in order to be compatible with adjacent or nearby non-industrial uses. It does not mean that no changes can occur to properties designated for industrial uses. Although the Proposed Project may not be consistent with the existing underlying land use and zoning designations for the Project site, as discussed on page III-16 of the Draft EIR, the Project applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment from Limited Manufacturing to Neighborhood Commercial and a Zone Change from MR1-1 to the Residential/Accessory Services (RAS)

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-50 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

4-1 zone designation. If the City’s decision makers should approve the Project and requested entitlements, the Project would be consistent with these new designations.

Comment No. 14-18

The Community Plan also encourages "the revitalization of the motion picture industry". By significantly reducing the available land for expansion of the entertainment industry in the Industrial Core of Hollywood, the proposed project is not consistent with this Plan policy.

Response to Comment No. 14-18

In recent history, the Project site was used for the television industry. However, the previous owner sold the facility vacant, following a relocation and apparent consolidation of the television activities previously located at the site. Since that time, the Project site has been used very infrequently by the television production industry. This indicates that there is little demand for use of the property in the television or motion picture industry. The conversion of 2.27 aces of land from Limited Manufacturing to Neighborhood Commercial would represent approximately 0.68 percent of the 335 acres of land designated in the Hollywood Community Plan for industrial uses. This is not a substantial reduction in industrial designated land. Other larger parcels of industrial land would be available for purchase and development in Hollywood by the motion picture industry or other industrial uses. The Proposed Project is not inconsistent with the industrial objectives of the Hollywood Community Plan. Moreover, the purpose of CEQA is to provide analysis of environmental impacts from proposed projects. “The revitalization of the motion picture industry” is not a policy or goal designed to reduce environmental impacts of potential projects.

Comment No. 14-19

The staff planners in the Planning Department recognize that the City is hemorrhaging industrial property at an alarming rate citywide. (See Below). The City's Industrial Lands Policy project has recently studied Hollywood and found available land to be scarce and demand high for industrial properties. The department's study did not identify the subject site as a potential site for a zone change to other uses.

In fact, the Hollywood Community Plan is very explicit stating "To preserve this valuable land resource from intrusion by other uses, and to ensure its development with high quality uses in keeping with the urban residential character of the community, the Plan proposes classifying industrial land in restricted zoning categories such as the MR Zone. The subject site is currently zoned MR-1 for this very reason. Clearly, the proposed project is not consistent with this Plan policy, not even close.

Response to Comment No. 14-19

See the Response to Comment No. 14-18.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-51 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment No. 14-20

The Draft Environmental Impact Report table states "The Project applicant is also requesting a Zone Change to the RAS4-1 designation. According to Los Angeles City Ordinance No. 174,999 (effective 1/15/03), the stated purpose of this zoning designation "is to provide a mechanism to increase housing opportunities, enhance neighborhoods, and revitalize older commercial corridors. The RAS 4 Zone is intended to provide a tool to accommodate projected population growth in mixed use and residential projects that is compatible with existing residential neighborhoods." The RAS4 zoning is allowed in areas designated as General Commercial in the applicable community plans. The proposed zone change to RAS 4 would support the goals of the City of Los Angeles General Plan and the stated purpose of L.A. City Ordinance No. 174,999 in establishing the RAS4 zone."

The conclusion drawn in the foregoing paragraph is demonstrably false for two reasons. First, as shown above, the proposed RAS-4 is not at all compatible with the existing residential neighborhood south of Willoughby. Second, the project does not support the goals of the Los Angeles General Plan in that the RAS zone designation was never intended to be applied to industrial planned and zoned property.

It is the position of the Melrose Neighborhood Association that the RAS-4 zone designation is clearly inappropriate for this site, given the goals of the City's General Plan and the stated goals of the underlying MR1 zone to protect the City's valuable industrial land from residential and commercial encroachment.

Please note the following from Section 12.17.5 of the Zoning Code which defines the MR1 Zone classification:

A. Purpose:

1. To protect industrial land for industrial use, and prohibit unrelated commercial and other non- industrial uses.

2. To provide a reasonable range or interim uses in this zone, so that land owners may receive income from temporary use, while the industrial land reserve is being protected for future growth.

3. To upgrade industrial development standards,

a. so that industry will be a better neighbor to residences

b. to protect industrial investment against incompatible residential, commercial and industrial uses, and

c. to prevent future industrial blight.

4. To preserve industrial land for light industrial uses and to provide for non-retail businesses which enhance the City's employment base. (Added by Ord. No. 169,366, Eff. 4/1/94.)

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-52 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

5. To reflect and accommodate the shift in industrial land use from traditional industrial activity to uses such as those involving record management, Research and Development, information processing, electronic technology, and medical research. (Added by Ord. No. 169,366, Eff. 4/1/94.)

The subject site is a classic example of all of the elements that the MRI zone was intended to address, yet the DEIR conveniently ignores the impact of changing the zone from MRI to RAS4, with regard to the goals of the Hollywood Community Plan.

In attempting to address the issue of scarce industrial land the DEIR states "Although the Planning staff has preliminarily recommended the Project site be designated an industrial preservation area, no formal recommendation has been made to the Planning Commission. Accordingly, the City has not adopted any specific policies that would affect the rezoning of industrial sites to non-industrial uses. The interim procedures articulated by the director of Planning require such projects to file a zone change and plan amendment. As a result, based on the approval of the requested entitlements, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the Project."

Response to Comment No. 14-20

See the Responses to Comment Nos. 14-17 and 14-18.

Comment No. 14-21

Interestingly enough rather than address the actual concern over the loss of industrial land, the Draft relies on a convoluted procedural approach to the question, which again amounts to if the City Council changes the plan designation to Neighborhood Commercial, then there will no longer be any industrial land to worry about.

The Draft does, in a backhanded way, acknowledge the city's effort to create an Industrial Lands Policy, by contending that the policy, which would declare the site "an industrial preservation area", has no standing because it has not yet been formally adopted by the City Council. It may be true that the Policy has not been formally adopted, but that does not mitigate the potential for a seriously unmitigated significant impact with regard to the loss of industrial land.

Response to Comment No. 14-21

The Draft EIR directly addresses the Industrial Land Use Policy Project on page IV.H-11. At the present time, however, the City has not adopted any specific policies that would affect the rezoning of industrial sites to ones with non-industrial uses. Therefore, the Industrial Land Use Policy Project is not applicable to the Proposed Project. The interim procedures articulated by the director of Planning require such projects to file a zone change and plan amendment similar to ones in this situation. As a result, based on the approval of the requested entitlements, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plans or policies currently adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the Project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-53 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Additionally, policies involving the preservation of industrial land, when and if adopted by the City, would not be adopted for the purpose of mitigating or avoiding an environmental impact but rather to address economic impacts from the loss of industrial land.

Comment No. 14-22

It is the position of the Melrose Neighborhood Association that the Draft EIR is woefully inadequate in that it completely fails to recognize or evaluate the potential impact associated with the loss of industrial land.

Response to Comment No. 14-22

See the Responses to Comment Nos. 14-18 and 14-21.

Comment No. 14-23

The Draft does get to the heart of the matter when it states that "locating housing adjacent to existing commercial and light industrial activities would fulfill the City's goals, as set forth in the General Plan Framework, to establish multi-family neighborhoods which enhance the quality of life for the City's existing and future residents and to concentrate housing in the City's centers and along primary transit corridors such as La Brea Avenue.

The intersection of Santa Monica Boulevard and La Brea Avenue, two blocks to the north of the subject site is not a "Center" as recognized by the City of Los Angeles. The intersection is actually in the City of West Hollywood and does not represent any particular center of activity other than the intersection of two MTA bus lines. That however, is the basis for the argument contained in the draft that any concentration of housing is fair game in the City as long at it fronts on a street with a major bus line. As we have noted in previous rebuttals to this argument, that description represents about 90% of all the commercial land in the City, hardly a discreet means of planning for the City's growth.

Response to Comment No. 14-23

As discussed on page IV.H-10 of the Draft EIR, the City of West Hollywood has a designated Commercial-Regional Center at the corner of Santa Monica Boulevard and La Brea Avenue. Under the Transportation Element of the City of Los Angeles General Plan, Santa Monica Boulevard is designated as a Transit Priority Arterial Street. Therefore the proposed zone change to RAS4 would support the goals of the City of Los Angeles General Plan and the stated purpose of L.A. City Ordinance No. 174,999 in establishing the RAS4 zone.

Comment No. 14-24

While the draft dismisses the import of the City attempt to develop an Industrial Lands Policy, the Draft latches on to another set of policies, this time put forward by the Planning Commission, also without benefit of City Council Approval. The Draft states "The Project would also promote the Do Real Planning policies relating to requiring density around transit, promoting housing, and locating jobs near housing."

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-54 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

The Do Real Planning guidelines espoused by the Commission, however, talk about actual rail mass transit locations and do not advocate placing housing on industrial land.

Response to Comment No. 14-24

As discussed on page IV.H-11 of the Draft EIR, the Project would promote the Do Real Planning policies relating to requiring density around transit, promoting housing, and locating jobs near housing. These policies have nothing to do with the existing zoning of new project sites.

Comment No. 14-25

It is the position of the MNA that the Draft conclusion that the "change of the land use designation and rezoning of the Project site is consistent with the General Plan and adopted environmental goals or policies contained in other applicable plans and would not constitute a significant impact with respect to any land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact", is factually false, given the stated goals of the Hollywood Community Plan with regard to industrial land as a resource and the purpose of the MRI Zone, as defined in the City's Zoning Code", with regard to the preservation of the City's Industrial Land Base.

Response to Comment No. 14-25

Based on the Responses to Comment Nos. 14-14 through 14-24, the potential Land Use Consistency impacts of the Proposed Project would continue to be less than significant as determined in the Draft EIR.

Comment No. 14-26

See also the appendix to this document containing Bill Christopher's recent Opinion column in the Los Angeles Times regarding Industrial Land Use in Los Angeles.

Response to Comment No. 14-26

The article attached as an appendix to the comment letter represents the opinions of the author. It does not question the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR.

Comment No. 14-27

The Draft states "The Project is a mixed-use retail/residential development which would replace the existing studio facility at the site. As such, the Project would neither physically divide an established community on the block that includes the Project site, nor in the surrounding community. No separation of uses or disruption of access between land use types would occur as a result of the Project."

The MNA stands in awe with regard to the foregoing paragraph. In attempting to address "Land Use Compatibility", which is generally understood to the ability of a proposed Land Use to integrate with then

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-55 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

neighboring land uses, the draft language sees, in an arcane fashion, to view the proposed 500' long, 75' tall monolithic building as a mirage.

In the second paragraph of that section the Draft states the obvious: "The 3.0 FAR and proposed 75-foot height would be greater than any existing development located near the Project site along La Brea Avenue. The proposed buildings would be taller than the one- and two-story buildings located immediately around the Project site. The Proposed Project includes townhouses along the Willoughby Avenue side and reduced heights to 37 feet gradually stepping back to the north rising 53 feet to 65 feet on the north side of the Project site to respond to the residential character of the neighborhood across Willoughby Avenue. In addition, new projects which could utilize the current zoning, as well as the RAS4 zone, are unlimited as to their height."

The Draft, however, fails to acknowledge that this juxtaposition could, in and of itself, create a significant, an unmitigated, impact. Instead, the Draft makes a statement out of context that the current zone would permit unlimited height. What the draft fails to convey is that while the current zoning is unlimited in terms of height, the mass of a project is a function of the allowable density divided by the height. By that we mean that a building with a 3.0 FAR at 75' in height will appear twice as bulky as a project with a 1.5 FAR will appear at the same height.

In the same vein, we find that the draft manages to ignore the real compatibility issues presented by the imposition of a seven level, 235,000 sf, 75' tall, 219 unit multi-family residential/parking structure hard up against both the existing light industrial uses to the north and west and the one an two story single family/small apartment neighborhood to the south which has a 20' height limit in place.

It is, therefore, the position of the MNA that the Draft EIR is inadequate in its discussion of Land Use Compatibility because the Draft does not adequately identify and address the impacts associated with shoe horning a massive multi-family development into an existing industrial area. The MNA also takes the position that the draft is inadequate by virtue of its failure to identify and mitigate any impacts associated with the demonstrated lack of compatibility between the proposed high density project and the existing low density community to the south.

Response to Comment No. 14-27

The Project would be taller than the majority of buildings in the local vicinity, but that fact alone does not equate to the proposed use being incompatible with existing nearby uses or that the land use compatibility impact would be significant. As stated in Comment No. 14-8, there are tall buildings in existence along La Brea Avenue, some of which are in fact taller than the Proposed Project.

The Proposed Project would comply with the FAR limits of the RAS4 zone and would be located at the southern edge of an industrial area. The Proposed Project would not be located along the south side of Willoughby Avenue and would not be located adjacent to any existing residential dwellings.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-56 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment No. 14-28

The Draft states that "The residential component of the Project would add 219 housing units to the City's housing inventory. This increase would not exceed the projected/planned levels for the year of Project occupancy/buildout and therefore would not introduce unplanned infrastructure that was not previously evaluated in the adopted Community Plan or General Plan. As a result, the development of the Project would not directly induce substantial housing growth."

Much of that statement is true, although making a finding that growth in 2010 or 2011 will exceed planned levels for the year seems to be a bit of prognostication without a license. What the Draft fails to address, however, is the project's relationship to the City's affordable housing needs. The City has a chronic need for more affordable housing, particularly within the greater Hollywood community. While the project does not directly add to the need for additional affordable housing, given its configuration with 100% market rate units, the project does not address the City's and the Community's substantial need in any way.

Response to Comment No. 14-28

Although no residential units are proposed to be made available for low or very low income people, market rents for the apartment units would be more affordable than the monthly payment for a condominium, townhouse, or single family home in the market area. The issue of affordable housing units is one that will be considered by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project, but it is not one of the City thresholds of significance for determining environmental impacts pursuant to CEQA.

Comment No. 14-29

The Draft maintains, based on the underlying traffic study, "The Proposed Project could be expected to generate a net increase of 2,956 vehicle trips per weekday with 106 morning peak hour trips and 279 afternoon peak hour trips added to the local roadway network. Based on the City's thresholds of significance, the Project traffic would significantly impact the intersections of La Brea Avenue and Romaine Street and (2) La Brea Avenue and Willoughby Avenue. No other study-area intersections in the Cities of Los Angeles or West Hollywood would be significantly impacted by Project traffic."

The MNA's position is that the traffic distribution pattern used to project future traffic volumes is flawed. Similarly, the MNA does not agree with the Study's assumptions with regard to pass-by trips and internal trips. See our comments below under Traffic.

Response to Comment No. 14-29

The City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) was consulted prior to preparing the Traffic Impact Analysis. LADOT reviewed and approved the study assumptions regarding the project trip generation, pass-by percentages, distribution and assignment of Project generated traffic for use in the Traffic Impact Analysis. It should be noted that the traffic generation was conservative since it did not

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-57 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

take any trip discounts for internal mixed-use trips. The Traffic Impact Analysis has been prepared to be consistent with the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation’s adopted Traffic Study Policies and Procedures and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) recommended practice.

Comment No. 14-30

The Draft states that "The Traffic Impact Analysis analyzed the potential impacts of the Project's daily traffic on Willoughby Avenue, Formosa Avenue and Detroit Street. Based on the City's thresholds of significance, no significant neighborhood impacts would occur as a result of traffic generated by the Project. It is, however, recommended that southbound through moves not be allowed between the commercial driveway on Willoughby Avenue and Detroit Street."

The logic of that paragraph escapes us. If there will not be any significant neighborhood impacts, then why would the project need to block cross access at Detroit Street? If there is a need to block cross access, does that not represent a significant impact? Then how is the blockage accomplished physically? If the answer is to block general access to Detroit Street from the north, then what the development is doing is penalizing the residents of Detroit Street by limiting access to their homes in exchange for the right to build a project that exceeds every measure of the zoning and planning envelope that is currently in force on the subject site. (See the site plan at the top of page 26 of this commentary)

If general access to Detroit is not blocked, there is no physical way to prevent cross traffic as long as the entry/exit from the project is aligned with center line of Detroit Street. Given that, the mitigation required should, at the very least, relocate the entry/exit a minimum of 100' east of the centerline of Detroit Street. or better yet, move the entry/exit off of Willoughby all together.

Response to Comment No. 14-30

The Project access was designed to spread the Project traffic to three adjacent and nearby streets. Three key points of Project ingress and egress were developed to provide residents, employees and customers route choices based on the time of day and direction of travel to minimize traffic in the local neighborhood.

A straight alignment for the driveway opposite Detroit Street is recommended to avoid interlocking left- turn movements to and from either the driveway or the street. Recognizing that the driveway opposite Detroit Street would have the potential to attract diverted traffic through the neighborhood, the Project will post regulatory signs to prohibit through movements between the driveway and Detroit Street. This traffic control measure has been successfully implemented in other development projects with similar access circumstances and is fully enforceable through the State of California Vehicle Code. The Project is also required to submit a driveway plan as part of the approval building permit process to ensure compliance. This measure is not needed, however, to mitigate an otherwise potentially significant impact of the Project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-58 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment No. 14-31

The Summary Table of Impacts/Mitigation Measures describes four access points to the site but fails to note any impacts associated with them. This tends to result from the generic approach to traffic analysis which focuses on the major signalized intersections and is much less capable of analyzing impacts associated with traffic on local streets, in this case Willoughby Avenue. a.) The residential driveway is positioned at the extreme western edge of the subject site, about 500' west of the La Brea Avenue. (See the annotated site plan on the following page.) The effect of that decision is to concentrate the in/out movements of approximately 400 cars per day directly opposite a series of small single family residences, using a narrow (30' wide) local street with one traffic lane in each direction. The concentration of turning traffic in that location does not show up in an analysis that focuses on the intersection of La Brea & Willoughby.

It is the position of the MNA that the location of the driveway access to the residential units at the western edge of the site, driving a concentration traffic as far as possible into the existing community and away from the commercial thoroughfare poses the risk of creating a seriously significant un-mitigated impact at that driveway location.

Response to Comment No. 14-31

The location of the residential driveway on Willoughby Avenue replaces an existing commercial driveway for the prior studio use. The estimated 101 AM and 122 PM peak hour trips generated by the residential use have been analyzed during the design phase of the Project for placement of the driveway. The results indicated that the residential driveway would operate at Level of Service A and C in the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. LADOT does not require this information in the traffic impact study and therefore was not submitted as part of the Traffic Impact Analysis. The driveway capacity worksheets are attached as Appendix B to this Final EIR.

Comment No. 14-32 b) The issues with the location of the primary commercial driveway at Detroit Street and Willoughby have been documented above under the Neighborhood Intrusion section.

Note that the architect has placed two in-bound ticket spitter lanes at this location, where there is only one at the combined access from the alley to the north and from La Brea Avenue. Clearly, the architect understands where the primary access will be and users of the complex will likely come to the same conclusion in short order. And once that location is established as the primary retail access point, it will also become the primary exit point as well, experience in parking situations dictates that the general impulse is to leave by means of the same location as your point of entry.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-59 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Response to Comment No. 14-32

The primary reason for two entry lanes for the Willoughby Avenue driveway opposite Detroit Street is to provide more storage area off of Detroit for vehicles entering the Project parking structures without blocking the sidewalk and disrupting the pedestrian flow. Also see the Responses to Comment Nos. 14- 29 and 14-30.

Comment No. 14-33 c) The remaining access points are clearly secondary locations. The access from La Brea is obviously meant to solve a servicing concern, allowing commercial delivery trucks to access the site without conflict with the patron traffic. Providing a means of access for customers through the loading dock may look acceptable on paper, but in practice, customers will quickly learn to avoid the dock (and the conflict with trucks), and proceed further south on La Brea, make a right turn onto Willoughby and enter the building at Detroit, just like the site plan intends.

Similarly, the alley egress to the north is also of very questionable value to the potential customers. Leaving via a narrow and generally unsightly alley, and then having to maneuver over to Formosa to find the signal at Santa Monica does not save much time in lieu of simply turning west on Willoughy [sic] and avoiding Santa Monica Boulevard entirely.

Response to Comment No. 14-33

See the Responses to Comment Nos. 14-29 and 14-30.

Comment No. 14-34

The Draft EIR does not evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed project under the emerging standard for potential Urban Decay. California courts have recently held the impacts causing potential urban decay are required to be evaluated under the California Environmental Quality Act. (See Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield.)

Under the standard for the evaluation for potential Urban Decay, the document must look at the potential of the proposed project to have a significant negative economic impact on surrounding or local business or property interests that may cause future blight in the community.

In the subject case, the insertion of a major housing concentration within a traditional industrial complex may very well have a significant chilling effect on the existing businesses and properties immediately to the north and west of the subject property. Similarly, the placement of a seven level, 219 unit multi-family structure directly across the street from a traditional one and two story low scale, low density residential community may have a significant negative impact on property values in the community directly south of the subject site, especially when the potential for traffic conflicts on Willoughby are factored into the equation.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-60 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

It is the position of the MNA that the Draft document in this case must evaluate the potential for Urban Decay in order to meet the legal requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act.

Response to Comment No. 14-34

The case cited by the commenter, Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield, 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184 (2004), addressed the need for an inclusion of an analysis of urban decay in an EIR analyzing the impacts of the addition of 1.1 million square feet of retail space on other stores. In that case, the evidence in the record supported the validity of concerns that the shopping centers could cause store closures and consequent long-term vacancies.

In contrast to the facts in Bakersfield Citizens, this project would add 35,000 square feet of commercial space and 219 residential units. There is no evidence that the addition of a single level specialty grocery store, which would serve the residents of the Project, as well as the residents of the surrounding neighborhoods, would or could result in store closures or consequent long-term vacancies. There is no evidence that the addition of 219 residential households would or could negatively impact surrounding commercial uses. There is no evidence that the Project will negatively impact property values. Moreover, CEQA Guidelines section 15131(a) provides “Economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment.”

Comment No. 14-35

Sometimes a picture really is worth a 1,000 words as is the case with the partial image shown on the previous page. The image is taken from Figure II-5 in the Draft document and is meant to clearly demonstrate three things:

1. The "La Brea Corridor" is truly made up of one and two story retail facades and automotive uses as clearly in the previous image stretching to the south edge of the photo frame.

2. The proposed land use on the subject site is not a continuation of the "La Brea Corridor" as represented in the Draft document, rather it represents a sharp turn down Willoughby Avenue, driving the "commercial activity" 500' into the abutting residential community.

3. The established residential community immediately to the south of the subject site is, in fact, a low scale, low density mix of one and two story single family residences and small apartment.'

Nothing in this photo supports the contention the proposed seven level, 219 unit monolith on the subject property outlined in red, will be "compatible" and "consistent" with the surrounding community.

Note that the photos of the site shown in Figures II-7 & II-8 in the draft document are cropped to avoid showing any hint of the context surrounding the site from street level.

Response to Comment No. 14-35

Regarding the “La Brea Corridor,” see Response to Comment No. 14-16.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-61 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Regarding the compatibility of the Proposed Project with the existing residential uses in the vicinity, see Responses to Comment Nos. 14-15 and 14-27.

Figures II-7 and II-8 of the Draft EIR consist of Photographs of the Project site. The photographs in these figures are meant to show the existing uses currently at the project site. Photographs of existing uses surrounding the Project site are shown in Figure II-9 of the Draft EIR, which clearly shows the heights of existing commercial and residential buildings.

Comment No. 14-36

The Draft document states "The Proposed Project site is located within the Hollywood Community Plan (Community Plan) area, which designates the Project site for Limited Manufacturing uses. The Project site is zoned MRl-l which is a Restricted Industrial Zone. Commercial uses such as banks, clinics, laboratories, and offices are permitted within the MRl-l zone, although the zone is primarily intended for industrial uses such as software development, printing, publishing, and media production", which tends to make the Hollywood Community Plan and the MRI zone seem as generic as possible.

In fact, as we have explained in detail on pages 17 through 21 of this commentary, the framework of both the Hollywood Community Plan and the MR1 zone are set up to explicitly prevent the type of residential land use being proposed from intruding into the already scarce industrial lands supporting the entertainment industry.

It is the position of the MNA that the draft document must clearly reflect the intent of the current Land Use and Zoning Designations in the description on Page 11-10).

Response to Comment No. 14-36

The text on page II-10 of the Draft EIR clearly states that the MR1-1 zone is a Restricted Industrial Zone and lists the uses that are permitted in the zone. The Proposed Project is not permitted with the MR1-1 zone. As discussed on page III-16 of the Draft EIR, the Project applicant is requesting a Zone Change from MR1-1 to the Residential/Accessory Services (RAS) 4-1 zone designation.

Comment No. 14-37

In order for the decision makers and the public to get a true picture of the scale and scope of the project, it is the position of the MNA that the table should reflect the square footage devoted to on-grade parking (within the building) and above grade parking. Without those numbers, the description contained in the table is only partially complete and very misleading.

Response to Comment No. 14-37

See the Response to Comment No. 14-3.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-62 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment No. 14-38

Each time the Draft EIR describes the surrounding block, it uses the same language: " the block that includes the Project site is occupied by a four-story office building, and commercial and light industrial uses such as Mole-Richardson & Co., Pacific Radio, SuperColor Imaging and automobile repair facilities." The purpose of that language appears to be to highlight the "four-story office building". As we noted on page 10 of this commentary, that building is a 50' tall (very short for a typical four story building) structure that occupies only approximately 6,300 sf of ground area out of a block that encompasses 345,000 sf of land area That means that the office building covers only a minimal 1.8% of the block area. The remainder of the block is devoted to a mix of one and two story structures, along with a significant portion of surface parking areas as is the case at the new DMV installation, which is completely overlooked by the Draft.

It is the position of the MNA that the prominence given to the small "four- story office building" in the Draft EIR (in this section and others) is purposefully misleading and must be clarified to note that the office building is clearly an anomaly on the subject block.

Response to Comment No. 14-38

When describing the block in which the Project site is located, the four-story office building is listed first as it is the most visually prominent feature of the block after considering contemporaneously the two- story studio/office building, satellite towers, and rooftop billboard currently located at the Project site. As discussed in the response to Comment No. 14-8, there are existing tall buildings located along La Brea Avenue, some of which are in fact taller than the Proposed Project. These may be few, but that fact alone does not equate to the tall buildings being anomalies or that they constitute a significant impact on nearby uses.

Comment No. 14-39

The Draft notes only views from the south side of Willoughby Avenue and by pedestrians walking north on Detroit. As shown in our illustrations on page 14 of this commentary, the view is also available to motorists coming north on Detroit St, which would be totally blocked by the proposed development.

Response to Comment No. 14-39

See the Response to Comment No. 14-11.

Comment No. 14-40

The Draft document states "The Proposed Project would be consistent and compatible with the surrounding existing uses as it is a mixed-use retail/residential land use similar in height and scale to the neighboring properties. The Proposed Project includes townhouse apartments along the Willoughby Avenue side and reduced heights to 37 feet, gradually stepping back to the north, rising to 55 feet and then to 65 feet on the north side of the Project site to respond to the residential character of the

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-63 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

neighborhood across Willoughby Avenue and to integrate with the commercial uses to the north. Therefore, the potential impacts of the Proposed Project on the area's visual quality and character would be less than significant."

The MNA takes specific issue with this statement. We have detailed our concerns on Pages 6 through 10 of this commentary.

The conclusion contained in the Draft: "Overall, the Project would transform the site to an integrated part of the urban fabric of the area. Impacts related to the change in the visual appearance and character of the project site would be less than significant, as viewed from adjacent streets and the areas surrounding the project site." is, in the opinion of the MNA, false. The project will, in no way, become "an integrated part of the urban fabric for the reasons documented on Pages 6 through 10 of this commentary.

Response to Comment No. 14-40

See the Response to Comment No. 14-8.

Comment No. 14-41

The images shown on Page 14 of this commentary effectively rebut the contention in the draft that "Thus impacts associated with the blockage of views to the Hollywood Hills from Willoughby Avenue would be less than significant."

Response to Comment No. 14-41

See the Response to Comment No. 14-11.

Comment No. 14-42

Figures IV.B-l through 6 are not surprising for what they say about shadows cast by the proposed building, but the MNA believes they are critical in understanding the actual context of the project site. All of the buildings depicted on the diagrams as providing the immediate context for the subject development are labeled as one or two stories, directly contradicting the claims made that the "The Proposed (seven story) Project would be consistent and compatible with the surrounding existing uses as it is a mixed-use retail/residential land use similar in height and scale to the neighboring properties.", as stated on Page IV.B-6.

Response to Comment No. 14-42

See the Responses to Comment Nos. 14-15 and 14-27

Comment No. 14-43

As noted in the section detailing our response to Table I-I, even though the site is not the original location of KCOP, it was the primary location of the station for almost 40 years, during the prime development of

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-64 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

television as a mass media in Los Angeles. As such, we believe that the site has the potential to be listed on the California Register. MNA, however, has not completed a historic resources survey of the subject site at this time. We reserve the right to submit additional information in this regard as it becomes available.

Response to Comment No. 14-43

See the Response to Comment No. 14-13.

Comment No. 14-44

Again, the draft prominently refers to the "four-story office building" in the third paragraph, as if attempting to use that small building as cover for the proposed development. See the discussion above on Page 30 of this commentary regarding the relative size of the four-story office building and the proposed development.

Response to Comment No. 14-44

See the Response to Comment No. 14-38.

Comment No. 14-45

The Draft EIR manages to cull out 10 goals and objectives of the adopted Hollywood Community Plan which deal with economic and population growth across the Plan area, while failing to mention (or purposefully ignoring) the two key objectives of the Plan that relate directly to the subject site.

The Hollywood Community Plan calls for "Designating land for industrial development that can be used without detriment to adjacent uses of other types." The subject site has long been designated as an industrial site and has not been detrimental to the adjacent single family and low density multi-family residential uses. The proposed project is not consistent with this Plan policy.

The Hollywood Community Plan also encourages "the revitalization of the motion picture industry". By significantly reducing the available land for expansion of the entertainment industry in the Industrial Core of Hollywood, the proposed project is not consistent with this Plan policy.

Response to Comment No. 14-45

See the Responses to Comment Nos. 14-17 and 14-19.

Comment No. 14-46

While the Draft EIR notes almost in passing that "The Project site is currently zoned MR1-1, which is a Restricted Industrial Zone. Commercial uses such as banks, clinics, laboratories, and offices are permitted within the MR1-1 zone, although the zone is primarily intended for industrial uses such as software

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-65 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

development, printing, publishing, and media production.", it completely ignores the specific purpose of the MR1 zone.

Please note the following from Section 12.17.5 of the Zoning Code which defines the MR1 Zone classification:

A. Purpose:

1. To protect industrial land for industrial use, and prohibit unrelated commercial and other non- industrial uses.

2. To provide a reasonable range or interim uses in this zone, so that land owners may receive income from temporary use, while the industrial land reserve is being protected for future growth.

3. To upgrade industrial development standards,

a. so that industry will be a better neighbor to residences

b. to protect industrial investment against incompatible residential, commercial and industrial uses, and

c. to prevent future industrial blight.

4. To preserve industrial land for light industrial uses and to provide for non-retail businesses which enhance the City's employment base. (Added by Ord. No. 169,366, Eff: 4/l/94.)

The subject site is a classic example of all of the elements that the MR1 zone was intended to address, yet the DEIR conveniently ignores the impact of changing the zone from MR1 to RAS4, with regard to the purpose of the MRI zone and the goals of the Hollywood Community Plan.

Similarly, the DEIR casually states that the "properties located south of the Project site on Willoughby Avenue are zoned [Q] R3-XL (Multiple Dwelling)", leaving the distinct impression that there is a connection between the [Q] R3 zoning and the multi-family zoning proposed for the abutting subject site. In fact, the permanent [Q] condition attached to the R3 zoning south of Willoughby is a height restriction limiting any structures in the area to a maximum of two stories or 20'. Result of that zoning has been to protect the existing community of one and two single family houses and two story apartments from the intrusion of taller and denser multi-family developments such as the one being proposed on the subject site.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-66 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

It is the position of the MNA the draft must be clarified to fully explain the goals of the Hollywood Community Plan and The MR1 zone as they relate to existing industrial land uses. The draft must also clarify the nature and impact of the permanent [Q] conditions it relates to the properties south of Willoughby.

Response to Comment No. 14-46

Regarding the MR1-1 zone, see the Response to Comment No. 14-36.

The [Q] conditions for the residential area south of Willoughby Avenue limits the height to which structures in this area can be built. Neither the existing MR1-1 zone nor the requested RAS4-1 zone of the Project site is subject to these [Q] conditions. The Proposed Project would not be built adjacent to any residential use subject to the [Q] conditions. The [Q] conditions would not change or be eliminated if the Project were to be approved and the Proposed Project would have no physical affect on the residential area [Q] conditions.

Comment No. 14-47

While the Draft EIR notes the Planning Commission's 2007 initiative, (which is an informal policy not ratified by the City Council) the draft does not acknowledge that the policy initiative in question was not meant to encourage changing the use designation of planned industrial land to planned residential land. This is another case of the Draft document encouraging reverse planning. By that we mean that the Draft first assumes the Plan Amendment and Zone Change will be granted and then applies the policy to the result to see if the altered state fits the criteria. Instead, the MNA believes the impact of the change should be analyzed, before checking to see if the altered condition matches the criteria for "Do Real Planning".

Response to Comment No. 14-47

See the Response to Comment No. 14-24. In addition, it is appropriate for the analysis to assume that the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are approved; the Project cannot be approved and constructed unless the City approves the requested discretionary actions. These are part of the Proposed Project.

Comment No. 14-48

The Draft language with regard to the ILUPP is quoted as follows: "The Planning staff's preliminary recommendations for the Hollywood area included a recommendation that the block including the Project site be designated an industrial preservation area with no residential use. This preliminary recommendation was challenged by a number of interested parties, including staff of Council District 5, as incompatible and inconsistent with the dominant commercial use along the La Brea corridor and inconsistent with City policies promoting the location of mixed use development within transit corridors. The Planning staff subsequently recommended that the Project site be designated as industrial mixed-use, which would permit limited residential uses. The Director of Planning issued a subsequent letter dated February 22, 2008, indicating that the industrial land use memo was not intended to change existing

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-67 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Planning Department policy and that such policy decisions will take place as part of the currently underway Community Plan update process."

It appears from the structure of this language that applicants and the preparers of the draft went to extreme lengths to address the very specific concern raised by the initial ILUPP survey. The reference to the staff of Council District 5 is highly unusual in the context of a fair and impartial analysis, which the Draft EIR is supposed to be according to the tenets of state law. As such it raises the potential for conflict of interest and/or direct bias in the preparation of the Draft EIR as circulated.

With regard to the language itself, we remind the Drafters that, as we have noted previously, the so called "La Brea Corridor" is a strip of land 125' deep lining both sides of La Brea Avenue for a linear distance of two and a quarter miles between Wilshire Boulevard and Hollywood Boulevard. It consists primarily of one and two story retail storefronts and automotive related uses. Under no circumstances would the "corridor" extend 500' to the west along Willoughby Avenue, a 30' wide local street.

It remains the position of the MNA that the original finding of the ILUPP was correct. The change of heart shown by the Planning Director, as shown above to be under pressure from CDS, would only advocate that addition of live/work lofts under the "industrial mixed use" banner as opposed to a full on apartment complex as is being proposed for the subject site.

Response to Comment No. 14-48

Regarding the Industrial Land Use Policy Project, see Response to Comment No. 14-21.

Regarding the “La Brea Corridor,” see Response to Comment No. 14-16.

Comment No. 14-49

The draft goes on to refer to procedures to deal with "Applications for Residential Projects on Industrial Zoned Property Determined to be No Longer Viable for Industrial Use" without bothering to demonstrate that the subject site is no longer viable for industrial purposes. In fact, the land remains viable for industrial uses as evidenced by the state DMV's very recent investment in a new Hollywood field location on the same block as the subject site at 946 N. Formosa, as depicted in the photograph on Page 5 of this commentary.

Response to Comment No. 14-49

See Response to Comment No. 14-18

Comment No. 14-50

(a) If ever a complex had the potential to divide an established community, the proposed project is a classic example, as illustrated in the image o [sic] the previous page. As a seven level, high density, multi-family development it will effectively split the existing low intensity industrial land north of Willoughby from the low density residential community south of Willoughby. The

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-68 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

light industrial uses and the low intensity residences have existed in relative harmony for the past 40 years.

Response to Comment No. 14-50

As stated on page IV.H-12 of the Draft EIR, the Proposed Project would neither physically divide an established community on the block that includes the Project site, nor would it do so in the surrounding community. No separation of uses or disruption of access between land use types would occur as a result of the Proposed Project. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the established surrounding community. As no impact would occur, people would continue to have access to all the uses on the block that includes the Project site.

An example of a project that could physically divide an established community is a freeway that cuts through an already developed area. The Proposed Project is a mixed-use retail/residential development which would replace only the existing studio facility at the site.

Comment No. 14-51

(b) As we have noted the proposed uses are in direct conflict with many of the applicable land use plans, policies and regulations, including the Hollywood Community Plan, the MRI Zone, and the ILUPP.

Response to Comment No. 14-51

See the Responses to Comments Nos. 14-14 through 14-18, 14-21, and 14-23 through 14-25.

Comment No. 14-52

The analysis contained in the Table IV.H-1 is highly selective as we have previously noted. The Objectives analyzed are stated goals that apply generally over the entire plan area ("To further the Development of Hollywood" for example). The table conveniently ignores the two goals the we have highlighted on page 19 of this commentary, relating directly to industrial lands in Hollywood and the motion picture/entertainment industry.

Response to Comment No. 14-52

See the Responses to Comment Nos. 14-14 through 14-20.

Comment No. 14-53 a) Hollywood Community Plan Objectives

The Draft talks about the applicability of RAS4 zone to the subject site. As noted previously in this commentary, the RAS zone is intended for areas planed for General Commercial uses. It was not intended to be used on industrial land.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-69 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Response to Comment No. 14-53

See the Response to Comment No. 14-17.

Comment No. 14-54 b) General Compatibility

The Draft states "The RAS4-1 zone and height district designation would allow a floor area ratio (FAR) of 3.0. The 3.0 FAR and proposed 75-foot height would be greater than any existing development located near the Project site along La Brea Avenue. The proposed buildings would be taller than the one- and two-story buildings located immediately around the Project site." In making these statements, the document acknowledges the obvious disparity between the surrounding development pattern and the proposed project.

The Draft also stated "The Proposed Project includes townhouses along the Willoughby Avenue side and reduced heights to 37 feet gradually stepping back to the north rising 53 feet to 65 feet on the north side of the Project site to respond to the residential character of the neighborhood across Willoughby Avenue. In addition, new projects which could utilize the current zoning, as well as the RAS4 zone, are unlimited as to their height." The amount of step backs along Willoughby west of Detroit will help relieve the mass, but the sheer size of the proposed project (at a 2.5 to 1 FAR) cannot be mitigated to a level that would make the proposed development compatible with the surrounding low scale, low density community. The Draft EIR doesn't even try to make a credible case in this regard.

Response to Comment No. 14-54

See the Response to Comment No. 14-27.

Comment No. 14-55

Table IV.I-5 (page IV.L-H)

The trip generation table shown on page IV.L-11 points out the three issues we have with the Traffic Study prepared by Overland Traffic Consultants.

1. Transit Trips

The study assumes a 10% transit credit for the apartment dwellers. Transit options at the subject location are limited to the bus lines on Santa Monica Boulevard and La Brea Avenue. There is no credible evidence that 10% of the apartment dwellers will use the two bus lines in lieu of car trips.

Response to Comment No. 14-55

The City-wide General Plan studies have been conducted that show the Hollywood Community Plan transit share close to 17% of daily home work trips. Additionally, many more than two transit lines are

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-70 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

within walking distance to the project as discussed on pages IV.L-4 through IV.L-6 of the Draft EIR. These routes include services by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and the City of West Hollywood. Metro provides routes 212 and 312 (limited) generally along La Brea Avenue between Hollywood (Hollywood and Vine Station) and the Hawthorne (I-105 Station). A bus stop is provided on La Brea Avenue and Willoughby Avenue at the project site. Metro also provides bus routes 4 and 304 (limited) and Rapid line 704 along Santa Monica Boulevard between downtown Los Angeles and the City of Santa Monica. The City of West Hollywood provides City Line transit service (Routes A and B). In the study area, Routes A and B run around the south side of the West Hollywood Gateway commercial development (i.e., along Formosa Avenue/ Romaine Street/ La Brea Avenue).

Comment No. 14-56

2. Pass-by Trips

The biggest issue we have with the study is the credit for pass-by trips. The consultant and LADOT have agreed to allow a 40% credit against trips generated by the market component as pass-by trips. The MNA believes that the placement of the subject site belies the 40% credit. The issue we have is that "pass-by trips" moving east or west on Sunset, Melrose, Beverly and Third (which constitutes the majority of the traffic in the area) will have to be significantly re-directed to reach the subject site. Those movements are not accounted for in the analysis.

Response to Comment No. 14-56

The pass-by percentages used for the supermarket are consistent with the LADOT policy on pass-by trips to be used for supermarkets (reference provided in Appendix B to this Final EIR). The 40% pass-by trip is also consistent with the ITE recommended pass-by trip percentages (reference provided in Appendix B to this Final EIR). Non-pass-by trips consist of primary and diverted trips. ITE recommends that diverted linked trips should be treated similarly to primary trips because diverted trips are often difficult to identify (ITE Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice, page 31). Accordingly, the Traffic Impact Analysis did not reduce the primary project trips by a diverted link trip adjustment. The Traffic Impact Analysis, therefore, follows the LADOT and ITE recommended practices for dealing with pass-by and non-pass-by trips. The Traffic Impact Analysis did not reduce the primary trips by a diverted link trip adjustment.

Comment No. 14-57

3. Credit for Existing Land Uses

The subject site has not been in full use since 2003. As such, we believe the site should be treated as a vacant property, given the fact that the site has not generated a significant number of traffic trips within the last five years.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-71 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Response to Comment No. 14-57

The first application for the Project Traffic Impact Analysis was submitted to the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation in December 2004, resulting in an approved Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The first comprehensive Traffic Impact Analysis was submitted to LADOT in January 2005. LADOT approved the January 2005 Traffic Impact Analysis in May 2005. Upon commencing a comprehensive EIR for the Project, the 2005 traffic study was updated to August 2007. The Project applicant has been diligently pursuing a reuse of this site since early 2004.

The LADOT traffic credit requirement for 6 months of occupancy within the past 2 years is satisfied with the first submittal of the environmental documents in December 2004 for the Project. While opponents of the Project have extended the time frame for an occupancy date, those actions do not change the December 2004 filing date for the Project and the baseline for the initial Project filing. Notwithstanding, the 2-year policy is not an inflexible rule. Note that the LADOT policy states that that is used generally, but provides flexibility for other circumstances. Defining the baseline based solely on present traffic conditions at the Project site would be misleading given the existing buildings, ongoing use by other studio production companies and a prior City Planning Commission approval for the mixed-use Project.

A more accurate baseline determination, which better describes prior traffic conditions and is representative of the amount of traffic historically produced by the property, includes using full utilization of the Project site. This is consistent with the Project applicant’s current rights to fully re-lease and occupy all of the space in the existing buildings. Pursuant to LADOT policy, use credits were applied using an approved trip generation rate for the prior uses. This is also consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15125.

Comment No. 14-58

It is the position of the MNA that the cumulative effect of the three credits noted above is to significantly under project the real traffic impacts of the projects. As such, the values used in the subsequent intersection analysis do not represent the true trip generation numbers that will result from the proposed development project.

Response to Comment No. 14-58

See the Responses to Comment Nos. 14-55, 14-56, and 14-57.

Comment No. 14-59

Similarly, we believe the trip distribution pattern used by the consultant does not adequately project the number of trips that will use Willoughby Avenue westbound as an egress path from the subject site. In addition, we believe the traffic study over states he number of trips accessing the site from La Brea, as well as overstating the number of trips exiting the sit toward Romaine. The MNA reserves the right to present additional evidence on these point as more data becomes available.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-72 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Response to Comment No. 14-59

See the Response to Comment No. 14-29.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-73 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 15

Sabrina D. Venskus, Esq., Law Offices of Sabrina Venskus

Comment No. 15-1

The La Brea-Willoughby Coalition (hereinafter the "Coalition"), believes the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") has not been followed by the City in preparing the DEIR. The following impact areas have not been properly addressed or analyzed:

1) Aesthetic Impacts

2) Traffic and Circulation Impacts

3) Project's Inconsistency with the General Plan and Hollywood Community Plan

4) Wastewater

5) Water Supply

6) Land Use Impacts

7) Feasible Alternatives Analysis

"The EIR is intended to furnish both the road map and the environmental price tag for a project, so that the decision maker and the public both know, before the journey begins, just where the journey will lead, and how much they-and the environment-will have to give up in order to take that journey." (Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 268, 271.)

The DEIR fails to properly and fully inform the citizenry and decision makers of the environmental consequences of the project, and further fails to fairly analyze feasible alternatives to the proposed project. Thus, the Coalition requests the City remedy these deficiencies by and through the Final Environmental Impact Report,

Response to Comment No. 15-1

As stated in this introduction, this letter raises issues with respect to aesthetic impacts (height and bulk), traffic and circulation impacts, land use (including General Plan consistency), wastewater, water supply, and alternatives. The Responses to Comment Nos. 15-2 through 15-29 address these issues. Based on the comments provided in this letter as well as the associated responses to these comments, the City of Los Angeles has complied with the requirements of CEQA and the conclusions of the Draft EIR continue to be applicable to the Proposed Project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-74 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment No. 15-2

Appendix G to the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the Government Code) provides that a project could have significant environmental impacts to aesthetics if a project would "substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings." Furthermore, the Los Angeles City CEQA Guidelines provide that a factor in determining the significance of aesthetic impacts is the "degree of contrast between the proposed features and existing features that represent the area's valued aesthetic image.

In determining whether an impact is significant, the City cannot compare the project to the hypothetical industrial build-out scenario. Instead, the City must consider the current character of the neighborhood, which is comprised of single-family dwellings and the few buildings that reach beyond 2 stories. (DEIR, p. IV.B.-6.) By this comparison, it is obvious that a 5 story increase in height is not compatible with the neighborhood and comprises a very significant impact on aesthetics of the neighborhood. The DEIR's conclusion that the project is similar in height and scale to the surrounding neighborhood uses is belied by the DEIR's statement that the surrounding uses are single-and multi-family uses in addition to one four- story office building and the West Hollywood Gateway building. (DEIR, at p. IV.B.-6; see also Figure 11-9.)

Response to Comment No. 15-2

The Project would be taller than the majority of buildings in the local vicinity, but that fact alone does not equate to the proposed use being inconsistent or incompatible with existing nearby uses or that the aesthetic impact would be significant. There are existing tall buildings along La Brea Avenue, some of which are in fact taller than the Proposed Project. These may be few, but that fact alone does not equate to tall buildings being an anomaly or that they constitute a significant impact on nearby uses.

It should be noted that the existing facilities at the Project site are already taller than the other buildings in the nearby vicinity. As shown in Figures II-7 and II-8 of the Draft EIR, six satellite communication dishes and two billboards are located on the rooftop of the existing two-story office/studio building.

Regarding degrading the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, as discussed on pages IV.B-6 and IV.B-7 of the Draft EIR, the Project would transform the site to an integrated part of the urban fabric of the area. Impacts related to the change in the visual appearance and character of the Project site would be less than significant, as viewed from adjacent streets and the areas surrounding the Project site.

Comment No. 15-3

The DEIR's baseline conditions with respect to the scale and character of the neighborhood has no basis in reality and therefore the environmental analysis relying upon the DEIR's baseline conditions is faulty and incomplete.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-75 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

In the Coalition's comments on the City's Notice of Preparation of the DEIR (''NOP''), it stated that the EIR must include facts about the character of the surrounding neighborhood, including the relative height of buildings nearby and the fact that the entire Willoughby corridor from Detroit to Martel is comprised of one-story bungalows and one- and two-story low density, garden apartments. The Coalition would like to know why the DEIR does not include the information about the character of the existing surrounding La Brea-Willoughby neighborhood when the Coalition specifically requested the DEIR to do so. Because the DEIR fails to include key information about the character of the Willoughby Corridor neighborhood, the DEIR's comparisons between the existing neighborhood and the proposed project are not rooted in reality. (See the Coalition's Neighborhood Photographs Montage).

Response to Comment No. 15-3

Descriptions of the area surrounding the Project site are provided on pages II-1, II-10, IV.B-1, and IV.B-2 of the Draft EIR. Photographs of existing uses surrounding the Project site are shown in Figure II-9 of the Draft EIR, which clearly shows the heights of existing commercial and residential buildings. There are also other tall buildings along La Brea Avenue, some of which are taller than the Proposed Project.

Comment No. 15-4

Furthermore, the "stepback" provided in the proposed project' s design and upon which the City relies for a finding of "no significant impact" is insufficient to mitigate significant impacts. (DEIR, at p. IV.B.-6.) The stepback will not mitigate the enormous height and bulk increase at the property. (Exhibit 1)

Finally, the DEIR's finding that the proposed project's significant impacts are mitigated to a level of insignificance merely because the proposed project's 75 foot height and bulk is "stepped back" thirty-five feet in along Willoughby is unsupportable. As shown by the testimony and documentary evidence submitted by neighborhood residents and business persons, even with the small "stepback" proposed, the gargantuan project will impact the existing visual character of the neighborhood. (See Exhibit 2.)

Response to Comment No. 15-4

The Draft EIR does not state that the “stepback” would mitigate significant impacts. Page IV.B-6 of the Draft EIR states that setbacks to create open space and balcony areas would be provided on the residential levels along Willoughby Avenue on the south side of the Project site. These open space areas would provide some visual relief from the mass of the building.

Comment No. 15-5

In reality, the proposed project's significant aesthetic impacts could potentially be mitigated by reducing the height of the project, stepping the project's footprint back and developing a large park along Willoughby in front of the project, or breaking up the massing of the building. But none of these creative options are explored as they should.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-76 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Response to Comment No. 15-5

As stated on page IV.B-7 of the Draft EIR, impacts related to the change in the visual appearance and character of the Project site would be less than significant as viewed from the adjacent streets and areas surrounding the Project site. Therefore, mitigation measures such as those recommended by the commenter are neither required nor recommended for the Project.

Comment No. 15-6

In contrast, the Coalition has provided for the City's consideration a feasible alternative to the proposed project using an RAS-3 zoning with height restriction. As demonstrated by Duvivier Architects, this alternative is both feasible and much less aesthetically impacting, while still meeting project purposes. (Exhibit 3). (See discussion regarding alternatives, infra.)

Response to Comment No. 15-6

As stated on page IV.B-7 of the Draft EIR, impacts related to the change in the visual appearance and character of the Project site would be less than significant as viewed from the adjacent streets and areas surrounding the Project site. Therefore, an alternative such as the one recommended by the commenter is not needed to address a potentially significant impact.

In compliance with CEQA, the Draft EIR provide an evaluation of several alternatives to the Proposed Project, including a RAS3 Zone Alternative. There are numerous variations, however, that could be contemplated for each alternative to the Proposed Project. The Draft EIR provides a conservative analysis of the possible maximum development that could occur under the existing and alterative land use and zoning designations as the Project applicant is not proposing the development of any alternative to the Proposed Project. It is reasonable to assume that an entity that would develop the Project site with new commercial and residential uses would maximize the development potential of the Project site. The Draft EIR assumes an alternative that would comply with the limits of the RAS3-1 zone.

As discussed on page VI-45 of the Draft EIR, the RAS3 Zone Alternative would include the same 35,000 square feet of retail space as the Proposed Project, but would provide 123 apartment units rather than the 219 units of the Proposed Project. It is reasonable to assume that under the RAS3-1 zoning, multiple levels of building could exist with an overall project height of more than 75 feet as there is no maximum height limitation under the RAS3-1 zone. Since the buildings would be at up to four stories in height, this alternative assumes that parking would be provided in a subterranean and above ground structure.

Comment No. 15-7

Please see letter from Robert Shanteau, Ph.D., P.E., regarding comments specific to the DEIR's traffic and circulation analysis. (Exhibit 4.)

Response to Comment No. 15-7

See the Responses to Comment Nos. 15c-1 through 15c-30.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-77 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment No. 15-8

The City is charged under the California Government Code with preparing, updating and implementing a "General Plan", which governs all land use approvals within the City. As the Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code's introduction states,

The [Planning Department] is charged with the responsibility of preparing, maintaining and implementing a General Plan for the development of the City. The General Plan consists of the Framework Element, which provides overall guidance for the future of the City, various other citywide elements including the state-mandated elements such as the Transportation, Open Space and the Land Use among others. The Land Use Element is largely made up of the community plans that fall for a range of allowable land uses and intensities of uses as well as other matters relating to the use of land unique to each of the City's many communities." (Los Angeles Municipal Code, Chapter 1, General Planning Information).

In order to determine whether City infrastructure and services (such as wastewater treatment, water supply and transportation infrastructure) are meeting the City's current and near-future population growth's needs (and thus whether and how development should be approved), the City's General Plan, Framework Element (hereinafter "Framework Element," attached as Exhibit 4) requires the City to analyze: (1) population projections provided by Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG"); and (2) the City's own actual monitoring of the City's population growth, infrastructure and services to gauge the appropriateness of the estimates and provide for their modification over time, so that actual growth can be accommodated when and if it should occur. (Framework Element, Executive Summary, at p. 2.)

The Framework Element, Executive Summary states: "A system for the annual monitoring of growth, infrastructure, and services, used as the basis to guide future capital investments and development decisions, [will be] used as a mechanism to gauge the appropriateness of the estimates and provide for their modification over time." (Framework Element, Executive Summary, at p. 2.) As such, the Framework Element requires the City to systematically monitor its actual population growth (as opposed to merely "projected" population growth as reported by SCAG), sufficiency of City infrastructure and services, and periodic reporting of the data collected as a result of said monitoring. The data is then to be reported to the City decision makers, (including the City Council) for the express purpose of informing all development decisions within the City. This monitoring and data collection tells the City whether population growth is outpacing infrastructure and services, and whether development approvals should be focused, limited or delayed based on the City's ability or inability to timely accommodate its population growth with the necessary infrastructure and services required to support residents, workers, and business owners.

The city's monitoring and data collection duties are outlined in Items P42, P43, and P44 of the Framework Element. The City has failed to fully perform its duties to monitor and report on population growth and infrastructure and services as required by the City's own General Plan. The City's failure to perform the

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-78 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

required monitoring and reporting while still continuing to approve massive development at break-neck speed (including the Proposed Project), threatens the health, safety and welfare of the residents, workers and business owners of Los Angeles.

The last published Annual Report on Growth and Infrastructure was in 2000. Without the required monitoring and reporting, City decision makers cannot know whether the population growth facilitated by the sheer enormity of development approved within the last 10 years and continuing, is overburdening or will likely overburden current infrastructure capacity and services delivery. Without the required monitoring and reporting, neither can City decision makers determine whether planned infrastructure capacity and services delivery will come online in time to accommodate the inevitable near-term increase in population that will result from development already approved but not yet built.

State law requires that, because the general plan is the "constitution" for the City's future development, any decision affecting laud use and development must be consistent with the General Plan. (See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553, 570-71.) A project must be compatible with and not frustrate the general plan's goals and objectives. (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 378.) The proposed project is inconsistent with the General Plan because it would undermine the attainment of the Framework Element's goals and policies that require the City be fully informed of the demand and supply of infrastructure and population figures prior to making any laud use decisions.

Any development project approved in the absence of growth and infrastructure monitoring and reporting is not compatible with the Framework Element objective that such monitoring and reporting inform land use decisions. The Framework Element recognizes that restrictions on development must occur if the Framework Element is not implemented via monitoring: "the linkage between future growth and services will occur through the implementation of a monitoring program that provides information regarding 'real' demands and service levels in order to guide public decisions regarding infrastructure and service investments. Successful application of this system would mitigate the need to restrict development to ensure adequate level of service." (Framework Element, at p. 9-1.)

Despite the City's failure to perform the mandatory duties set forth in Framework Elements P42, P43, and P44, to prepare annual reports, establish monitoring and collect data intended to inform the General Plan's implementation, the City continues to approve development, such as the proposed project, in favor of upzoning land, thereby increasing population growth and density.

The City has issued millions of construction permits for new buildings since the last published Annual Report in 2000. In the second quarter of fiscal year 2008 alone, the city issued 1,981,509 construction permits for new buildings. (Exhibit 5, at p. I.) Approvals of zoning ordinances, specific plan amendments, general plan amendments, development agreements, and tentative subdivision maps, any and all of which vest applicants with a property right to develop their land, while the duties mandated by the General Plan's Framework Element remain unperformed, are per se inconsistent with the General Plan.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-79 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Thus, the proposed project cannot be approved prior to the performance of the city's duties under P42, P43, and P44 of the Framework Element. If approved, it would be void ab initio. (Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 531.)

Response to Comment No. 15-8

The Draft EIR includes an analysis of the Project’s consistency with the General Plan. Because the Project includes a change in land use designation from Limited Manufacturing to Neighborhood Commercial and a zone change to the RAS4-1 designation, upon approval of the Project, including a change in land use designation to Neighborhood Commercial, the Draft EIR concluded that the Project would be consistent with the General Plan and would be compatible with land uses in the vicinity of the Project site. The comment suggests that no project within the City of Los Angeles can be determined to be consistent with the General Plan based on the commenter’s assertion that the City has not met its mandated duties with respect to certain requirements of the General Plan’s Framework Element. Specifically, the comment states that the City has not met its duties under P42, P43 and P44 of the Framework Element because the City has not published an Annual Report on Growth and Infrastructure since 2000.

P42, P43 and P44 are implementation programs of the Framework Element. The Framework Element describes its implementation programs as follows:

“An implementation program is an action, procedure, program, or technique that carries out general plan policy. However, not all plan policies can be achieved in any given action, and in relation to any decision, some goals may be more compelling than others. On a decision-by- decision basis, taking into consideration factual circumstances, it is up to the decision makers to decide how to best implement the adopted policies of the general plan in any way which best serves the public health, safety and general welfare.

. . .

Program implementation is contingent on the availability of adequate funding, which is likely to change over time due to economic conditions, the priorities of Federal and regional governments and funding agencies, and other conditions. The programs should be reviewed periodically and prioritized, where necessary, to reflect funding limitations and the City's objectives. In addition, amounts and sources of funding, initiation dates, responsible agencies and the detailed work scope of programs may be changed without requesting amendments to the General Plan Framework Element.”

P42 assigns responsibility, identifies funding sources and provides a schedule for establishing a Monitoring Program to assess the status of development activity and supporting infrastructure and public services within the City of Los Angeles, among other things.

P43 assigns responsibility, identifies funding sources, and provides a schedule for preparation of an Annual Report on Growth and Infrastructure based on the results of the Monitoring Program.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-80 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

P44 assigns responsibility, identifies funding sources, and provides a schedule for establishment of a citywide transportation database to be used in the Monitoring Program.

After publication of the Annual Growth Report in 2000, the City determined, in accordance with the provisions of the Framework Element, rather than laboriously publish an annual report monitoring growth and development activity, to include on the Planning Department’s website (under “Statistical Information”) quarterly and annual data on development activity (permits) and most recent population data. The City determined that this process would provide more timely information, constantly available to the public and decision makers. See the transmittal letter from Con Howe, included as Appendix C to this Final EIR.

Comment No. 15-9

The HCP comprises one of 35 community plans that comprise the City's Land Use Element in the General Plan. (OEIR, at p. IV.J-2.) Chapter I of the Framework Element, item number 9 provides:

The Department of City Planning has established a program to comprehensively update general plan elements and community plans to implement the goals, policies, and objectives established in the Citywide General Plan Framework Element. Subject to availability of funding, all comprehensive updates of the citywide elements and the community plans for the purpose of implementing the Framework Element shall be initiated within five years of adoption of the Framework Element. Phasing of such updates may be made in accordance with Objective 3.3. and Policies 3.3. I and 3.3.2 5 based on the monitoring of population, development, and infrastructure and service capacities as recommended through the Annual Report on Growth and Infrastructure.

(Framework Element, at p. 1-9 [emphasis added].)

The City has failed to update the Hollywood Community Plan, which has not been updated in over 20 years, the last update being 1987. Therefore, the City has failed to perform its duty to update the Hollywood Community Plan within any reasonable proximity to the specified timeframe set forth in the General Plan. In addition, the "phasing" of the Hollywood Community Plan update is not acceptable in this instance because, as set forth in the proceeding paragraph, "phasing" must be based upon the Annual Report, which, as previously stated, has not been published since 2000.

The proposed project cannot be approved without the benefit of an updated Hollywood Community Plan.

Response to Comment No. 15-9

The legal presumption is that a city’s general plan, including its various elements, is valid and that official duties have been performed regularly, thus placing the burden on those challenging the plan to demonstrate that the plan is inadequate. See Garat v. City of Riverside, 2 Cal. App. 4th 259, 293 (1991), overruled on another ground in Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara, 7 Cal. 4th 725, 743 (1994). The burden is on the challenger to demonstrate the existence of a nexus between any plan inadequacies and

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-81 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

the project or action being challenged. Id. Although a court may not consider a city’s General Plan or its parts suitable, such unsuitability may not be the basis for concluding that the plan is legally inadequate, unless there is a statutory requirement on point. Id.; see Hernandez v. City of Encinitas, 28 Cal. App. 4th 1048, 1071 (1994).

Statutory law contains no requirement that a general plan’s land use element—which, in the context of the current project, is the Hollywood Community Plan—be updated at any given interval or in connection with any given event. See Garat v. City of Riverside, 2 Cal. App. 4th at 296. In Garat, the court found the general plan legally adequate despite the fact that it had not been updated in 18 years and therefore could not definitively be found relevant with respect to current conditions. Id. at 295-6. If the municipality has substantially complied with the statutory requirements, the reviewing court will not interfere with the municipality’s legislative action in updating or amending the elements of its general plan, unless that action was arbitrary or capricious or entirely lacking in evidentiary support. Black Property Owners Ass’n v. City of Berkeley, 22 Cal. App. 4th 974, 980 (1994).

Commenter cites the General Plan Framework Element in support of her contention that the project cannot move forward before the Community Plan is updated. However, as the commenter notes in Comment No. 15-9, Chapter I of the Framework Element, item number 9 provides

Subject to availability of funding, all comprehensive updates of the citywide elements and the community plans… shall be initiated within five years….Phasing of such updates may be made in accordance with [Framework Element Objectives and Policies] based on the monitoring of population, development, and infrastructure and service capacities as recommended through the Annual Report on Growth and Infrastructure. (Emphasis added.)

As this provision of the Framework Element, cited by Commenter in Comment No. 15-9, makes clear, community plan updates shall be subject to availability of funding. Moreover, phasing of such updates may be made in accordance with Framework Element Objectives and Policies. This express language makes clear that the City does not require updates to its community plans within a fixed time frame. The City acknowledges that it is currently engaged in updating the Hollywood Community Plan. Such evidence, however, does not invalidate the current Hollywood Community Plan, demonstrate a conflict between the Hollywood Community Plan and the Project, nor does it put a halt to all project approvals. Although the Hollywood Community Plan is in the process of being updated, neither the process nor any information obtained through such process, invalidates the existing general plan. The Hollywood Community Plan expressly provides that it “has been designed to accommodate the anticipated growth in population and employment of the Community to the year 2010.” Therefore, Commenter’s suggestion that the population development, and infrastructure data is out-of-date is inaccurate. Additionally, as discussed in Response 15-8, after publication of the Annual Growth Report in 2000, the City determined, in accordance with the provisions of the Framework Element, that they would include quarterly and annual data on development activity and up-to-date population data on the Planning Department’s website rather than publish an annual report monitoring growth and development activity. The City determined that this process would provide more timely and accessible information to the public and decision makers. Therefore, the City’s analysis of the project vis-à-vis the Hollywood Community Plan conformed with

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-82 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

state law and the General Plan. For these reasons, the Project can be approved based on the existing General Plan, including its land use element for this Project, the Hollywood Community Plan.

Comment No. 15-10

The proposed project cannot be approved without the benefit of an updated Hollywood Community Plan. The proposed project's DEIR must also analyze and disclose inconsistencies between the existing Hollywood Community Plan (HCP) and the proposed project's conversion of light industrial zoned land which is currently utilized by the entertainment industry.

The previous Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the proposed project concluded the project would be consistent with the HCP because the purposes of industrial land retention is to retain jobs.

The DEIR should reconsider the question of project consistency with applicable land use plans. In determining the HCP consistency issue and consideration of land use impacts the EIR must consider factors such as types of jobs located in areas zoned industrial, especially light industrial zoned land.

Response to Comment No. 15-10

The conversion of 2.27 aces of land from Limited Manufacturing to Neighborhood Commercial would represent approximately 0.68 percent of the 335 acres of land designated in the Hollywood Community Plan for industrial uses. This is not a substantial reduction in industrial designated land. Other larger parcels of industrial land would be available for purchase and development in the Hollywood area by the other industrial uses. The Proposed Project is not inconsistent with the industrial objectives of the Hollywood Community Plan. See also the Response to Comment No. 15-9.

Comment No. 15-11

In addition, the EIR must consider direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts associated with loss of entertainment industry related jobs which are traditionally located on light industrial zoned land such as the parcel at issue here. Loss of industrial-zoned land results in a spiraling effect for which 40 to 60 jobs at a grocery may not compensate.

Response to Comment No. 15-11

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-83 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

The conversion of 2.27 aces of land from Limited Manufacturing to Neighborhood Commercial would represent approximately 0.68 percent of the 335 acres of land designated in the Hollywood Community Plan for industrial uses. This is not a substantial reduction in industrial designated land. Other larger parcels of industrial land may be available for purchase and development in Hollywood by the motion picture industry or other industrial uses. The Proposed Project is not inconsistent with the industrial objectives of the Hollywood Community Plan.

Comment No. 15-12

The HCP states: "Development may vary slightly from the Plan provided the total acreage of each type of land use, the land use intensities, and the physical relationships among the various land uses are not altered." (HCP, at p. HO-l.) The EIR must analyze whether the loss of this industrial land causes the acreage of industrial to be reduced below the designated level, 335 acres.

Response to Comment No. 15-12

Comment No. 15-13

The HCP states: "Industrial lands are located on a citywide basis without regard to the boundaries of individual communities or districts, under the general principle that such employment should be available within a reasonable commuting distance from residential locations." (HCP, at p. HO-3.) The development of this project does not follow this principle, because the development is removing industrial jobs away from a community and replacing only a small portion of those jobs with grocery jobs. The HCP states: "The Plan proposes more intensive utilization of existing industrial sites... " (HCP, at p. HO-3.) By approving this project, the city violates the policy of using existing industrial sites.

Response to Comment No. 15-13

See the Responses to Comment Nos. 15-10 and 15-11.

Comment No. 15-14

The EIR's section on wastewater (IV.M.l) is inadequate under CEQA because it uses outdated information, fails to analyze cumulative impacts, including those on the Santa Monica Bay, and impermissibly allows post-approval studies of flow volumes. In addition, the project is inconsistent with the General Plan regarding wastewater infrastructure.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-84 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Response to Comment No. 15-14

See the Responses to Comment Nos. 15-15 through 15-24. Based on the responses to these comments, the City of Los Angeles has complied with the requirements of CEQA and the conclusions of the Draft EIR continue to be applicable to the Proposed Project.

Comment No. 15-15

CEQA requires the City to use updated, accurate information in order to fully inform decision makers and the public of the consequences of the development. Here, the City impermissibly uses December 1,2004 statistics for the remaining capacity of the Hyperion Treatment Plant (HTP). (DEIR, at p. IV.M-1.) In addition, the DEIR states that the sewer lines "currently have sufficient capacity to handle the added flow generated by the Proposed Project." (DEIR, at p. IV.M-l [emphasis added]; see also p. IV.M-2 to M-3 and nt. 5.) The DEIR cites in support of this position a three year old (2005) communication letter from the Bureau of Sanitation based on estimates of flow.

Therefore, there is no evidence provided supporting the DEIR's assertion that capacity is currently sufficient to service the project and based on actual flow volumes. In addition, according to the Bureau of Engineering's Sewer Capacity Availability Review Procedural Guidelines (hereinafter "SCAR Guidelines"), "sewer availability is only valid for 180 days from the date of approval." (Exhibit 6, at p. 3.) Thus, the 2005 evaluation letter is invalid and cannot be relied there upon for a finding of no significant impact.

Response to Comment No. 15-15

The text of the Draft EIR (section IV.M.1, Wastewater) has been revised to reflect updated information provided by the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation (Comment Letter No. 8). This letter, dated June 18, 2008, was actually provided in response to the Notice of Preparation, rather than the Draft EIR, but was not received by the City until after the Draft EIR had been circulated for public review. As such, it does not question the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. In response to the Environmental Review Section’s request for information, the Bureau of Sanitation obtained gauging data for the sewer lines that would serve the Proposed Project and states that they would have available capacity. The letter also confirms that the Hyperion Treatment Plant has sufficient capacity for the Project. The revised numbers do not represent substantial new information and do not change the conclusion of the Draft EIR.

Comment No. 15-16

The City must address future wastewater flows and volumes in order to comply with CEQA. (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova, (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412 [EIR must identify the sources of water and analyze the environmental impacts from tapping those sources].) The DEIR asserts without explanation that the Bureau of Engineering will conduct wastewater flow studies of the project after approval to ensure the flows from the project do not exceed capacity. This post-approval study is antithetical to and disallowed by CEQA. The SCAR Guidelines describe what happens if capacity is determined to be exceeded by a project post-approval: the developer "will have to organize

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-85 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

with the Bureau of Engineering to determine if the existing sewer needs to be upsized... " (Exhibit 6, at p. 5.) Thus, the impacts of the project on sewer capacity are not fully disclosed during the CEQA process. In addition, according to the SCAR Guidelines, there is never any mention of how and when wastewater treatment capacity is evaluated, only sewer lines. Any flow study must be performed and the data and results must be presented in the project DEIR so that decision makers and the public are fully informed of the environmental consequences of the project.

Response to Comment No. 15-16

See the Response to Comment No. 15-15. Further gauging and evaluation may be needed as part of the permit process to identify a specific sewer connection point, but that is just the particular point or points at which the Project would connect to the existing system, which has the capacity to serve the Project. This is standard permit procedure and does not defer any analysis of a potential Project impact.

Comment No. 15-17

Furthermore, the DEIR's HTP statistics are misleading. The DEIR fails to mention that the City's wastewater treatment capacity must be expanded to meet projected needs, and what impacts from that expansion will result. The DEIR does not even so much as mention the implementation of the city's IRP (Integrated Resources Plan) with respect to wastewater, which is in the process of being approved after being overturned by a Los Angeles Superior Court. This is a fatal flaw in the DEIR, because, as evidenced in the IRP EIR, the City is required to expand wastewater treatment capacity to meet wastewater treatment demand, which includes this proposed project. (IRP EIR, at p. 1-11, found at http://www.lacity.org/SAN/irp/finaleir.htm.)

Response to Comment No. 15-17

In its letter (Comment Letter No. 8) dated June 18, 2008, the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation confirms that the Hyperion Treatment Plant has sufficient capacity for the Project. It is not the responsibility of the Draft EIR for this Proposed Project or any other general development project to evaluate the potential impacts associated with the potential future expansion of the Hyperion Treatment Plant. Any potential impacts related to such expansion would be evaluated during the environmental review for that specific project.

Comment No. 15-18

The City's CEQA Thresholds Guide states that a project normally would have a significant wastewater impact if "[t]he project would cause a measurable increase in wastewater flows at a point where, and a time when, a sewer's capacity is already constrained or that would cause a sewer's capacity to become constrained," or if "[t]he project's additional wastewater flows would substantially or incrementally exceed the future scheduled capacity of anyone treatment plant by generating flows greater than those anticipated in the Wastewater Facilities Plan or General Plan and its elements." (L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, p. K.2-3.)

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-86 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

An EIR must discuss significant cumulative impacts to which the project contributes an incremental amount. (Guidelines, § 15130, subd. (a).) "As defined in Section 15355, a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts." (Ibid.) "The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time." (Id., § 15355, subd. (b).)

Response to Comment No. 15-18

This discussion summarizes information from the L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide and the CEQA Guidelines. It does not question the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR.

Comment No. 15-19

The DEIR impermissibly ignores impacts on the Santa Monica Bay, Ballona Creek, and the Los Angeles River from the project's discharge of wastewater. The City has already been ordered by the Second District Court of Appeal to discuss a proposed project's incremental wastewater impacts on the Santa Monica Bay. Such potential environmental impacts must be addressed in the proposed project's DEIR.

In addition, the HTP has exceeded its NPDES permit limitations on wastewater effluent and has increased toxicity in the Santa Monica Bay. (Exhibit 8). Nowhere in either the wastewater section or the water quality section does the City address potential impacts to the environment (i.e., Santa Monica Bay; Los Angeles River) due to wastewater discharge from the proposed project.

As the Coalition stated in its comments to the NOP, the EIR cannot simply rely on the City's threshold guidelines for determining impact significance, especially given the impairment of the city's waters (Los Angeles River, Ballona Creek, Santa Monica Bay). (See e.g., http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/303dlists?006/epalr4_06_303d_regtmdls.pdf.)

A public agency preparing an EIR cannot rely on a threshold of significance or the checklist to foreclose the consideration of evidence that a significant impact may result, but must apply its independent judgment to determine the significance of an impact in light of the particular project. (Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099,1109-1112.)

Response to Comment No. 15-19

The Draft EIR analyzes impacts relating to wastewater from the Project and this discussion has been revised in Section III (Corrections and Additions) of this Final EIR. According to Section III, the Project would result in a net increase of 28,986 gpd of wastewater generation. The standard for significance for an impact from wastewater is based on whether existing infrastructure has the capacity to handle the wastewater generated by the project. Because the net wastewater generated by the Project represents 0.03 percent of the remaining capacity of the Hyperion Treatment Plant, the Draft EIR and this Final EIR have

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-87 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

determined that the Project would not have a significant impact with respect to wastewater. The commenter does not allege that Hyperion Treatment Plant does not have capacity to serve the project. The comment really refers to whether Hyperion Treatment Plant itself will have an impact on the Santa Monica Bay and/or Los Angeles River due to wastewater discharge. This Project does not require an expansion or modification of Hyperion Treatment Plant and, as such, will not contribute to any increased discharge from HTP to Santa Monica Bay due to expansion or modification of HTP.

Comment No. 15-20

Additionally, the DEIR states the current capacity and current average flows as 450 mgd and 362 mgd. (DEIR., at p. IV.M-4.) However, the DEIR fails to address future wastewater flows from the project and that relationship to treatment capacity in the future. The EIR must address future project flows and the project's relationship to the cumulative flows and future treatment capacity. (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova, (2007) 40 Ca1.4th 412.)

Response to Comment No. 15-20

The wastewater generation estimates identified for the Proposed Project on page IV.M-3 of the Draft EIR assume full completion and operation of the Proposed Project. The same is true for the wastewater generation estimates for the cumulative project set. These numbers are compared to the existing capacity of the Hyperion Treatment Plant since this is the existing environment that would be affected by implementation of the Proposed Project and cumulative development. The wastewater generation estimates for the Project are not expected to increase in the future. If the Hyperion Treatment Plant is expanded in the future, then the percent of contribution of the Project and the cumulative project set to the treatment volumes would be even lower than under the existing condition.

Comment No. 15-21

Furthermore, the City's finding that the project would not require or result in construction/expansion of new facilities is inaccurate because the City is required to expand facilities to meet demand, including the proposed project. (See IRP, http://www.lacity.org/sanlirpldocuments/v1-100-wastewater- management.pdf.)

Response to Comment No. 15-21

As stated in the Response to Comment No. 15-15, the sewer lines that would serve the Proposed Project all have available capacity and the Hyperion Treatment Plant has sufficient capacity for the Project. Therefore, the City is not required to expand any wastewater treatment facilities to serve the Proposed Project. The Project will simply need to connect to the existing infrastructure system in the streets surrounding the Project site.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-88 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment No. 15-22

The cumulative impacts analysis is fatally flawed because it mistakenly relies on only 138 related projects in the West Hollywood area. Under CEQA, "related projects" include "related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects." (Guidelines, § § 15355, subd. (b).) The HTP services the entire Los Angeles area and other contract cities, not just those in the project area. Thus, the related projects must include all proposed projects in the City area, not just those in West Hollywood.

Response to Comment No. 15-22

CEQA requires discussion of cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. The Draft EIR determined that the project’s impact is not cumulatively considerable based on the remaining capacity of Hyperion Treatment Plan and amount of cumulative sewage generation by the project and the related projects. The Draft EIR utilizes a list of “closely” related projects based on the geographic scope of the project and consistent with all other impacts analyzed in the Draft EIR. Sewage impacts do not relate solely to the impacts from Hyperion Treatment Plant but are also related to the sewer lines that serve the project and potentially serve the related projects. The CEQA Guidelines, particularly guideline Section 15355 does not require evaluation of all potential projects as the commenter suggests. Rather, Section 15355 limits the range of projects to those that are “closely related”. Certainly all projects past, present and future in the City of Los Angeles are not all closely related.

Comment No. 15-23

Even if the "related projects" constituted only the 138 identified in the DEIR cumulative wastewater impacts are significant because the proposed project would in fact "incrementally increase" the cumulative wastewater generation. Related projects in addition to the project comprises 3% of the total loading of the HTP, a significant increase in wastewater generation. A cumulative impacts analysis is unduly narrow when it is reasonable and practical to include the omitted projects and their exclusion prevented the severity and significance of the cumulative impacts from being accurately reflected. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 723, 270 Cal.Rptr. 650.)

Response to Comment No. 15-23

As stated on page IV.M-4 of the Draft EIR, the wastewater generation of the Proposed Project and the cumulative project set would represent less than three percent of the remaining capacity of the Hyperion Treatment Plant. Substantial remaining capacity is available at the Hyperion Treatment Plant and use of three percent of the remaining capacity by 139 projects would not be considered to be cumulatively considerable or significant.

Comment No. 15-24

As discussed above, the City does not know whether then need for treatment capacity will be met because the City has not performed its mandatory duties under the Framework Element of the General Plan and

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-89 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

has not drafted or adopted an Infrastructure Element. Environmental review of a project is hamstrung by the legal inadequacy of the general plan-if a general plan lacks all element, an EIR on a project is prepared in a vacuum-a necessary foundation as to the level of capacity and supply makes the EIR deficient. (Guardians of Turlock's Integrity v. City Council (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 584, 593.)

Response to Comment No. 15-24

With respect to the Framework Element, the implementation programs are subject to the following:

The General Plan Framework Element is implemented by a comprehensive program of strategies that encompass amendments of existing and preparation of new plans, ordinances, development standards, and design guidelines; conduct of studies and analyses; capital investments; coordination of economic development activities; modification of City procedures and development review and approval processes; and interagency coordination. …

California State law does not require that the City adopt an Infrastructure Element. As stated in the Framework Element, “State law permits cities to include optional elements in their general plans, thereby providing local governments with the flexibility to address the specific needs and unique character of their jurisdictions.” The Framework Element anticipates that the City will adopt an Infrastructure Services element, but it does not require the City to do so.

Comment No. 15-25

California is suffering from an extended drought. Governor Schwarzenegger has recently declared a statewide drought and called it a "crisis." (See http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/pressrelease/9796/.) Sources of the City's water supply are severely threatened. (http://watersupplyconditions.water.cagov/.)

Despite these grim statements, the DEIR states, without support in the record, that there is "ample enough" water supply to serve existing and planned development. (DEIR, at p. IV.M-13.) In addition, the

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-90 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

DEIR uses outdated information on water supply. LADWP states that water requirements for "any project that is consistent with the City's General Plan have been taken into account in the planned growth in water demand and that sufficient water supplies are available to accommodate the Proposed Project." (DEIR, at p. IV.M-13.) The authority for both assertions are taken from communications with LADWP personnel dating back three years to August and October 2005. As such, they cannot be relied upon as proper environmental review.

Furthermore whether the water supply needed for this project is sufficient is dependent in part on whether the project is consistent with the General Plan and its growth and demand policies. (DEIR, at p. IV.M- 13.) However, as pointed out supra, the project is not consistent with the General Plan. The DEIR does not alert the citizenry as to the true state of current and prospective water supply.

Response to Comment No. 15-25

Although California is currently experiencing drought conditions, this is a cyclical condition that is countered by years of average and above-average snow and rainfall. As stated on page IV.M-13 of the Draft EIR, the LADWP has stated in its Urban Water Management Plan that it will provide an adequate water supply to meet current and future growth until at least 2020. The Proposed Project would be constructed and operational well before 2020. Although the reference was provided in 2005, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) has stated that sufficient water supplies are available to accommodate the Proposed Project. Furthermore, as discussed above (see response to Comments Nos. 14-14 through 14-24, 15-8 and 15-9), the Project is consistent with the General Plan and its growth and demand policies.

Comment No. 15-26

The water supply section's cumulative impacts analysis is similarly flawed. The DEIR bases its statement that cumulative impacts are not significant upon the General Plan's analysis of planned growth water demand. (DEIR, at p. IV.M-14.) As addressed above, this analysis has not been completed and thus the DEIR's conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence.

Response to Comment No. 15-26

As stated in the Response to Comment No. 15-25, the LADWP has stated in its Urban Water Management Plan that it will provide an adequate water supply to meet current and future growth until at least 2020. Therefore, adequate water supplies are available to serve the Proposed Project and the related projects.

Comment No. 15-27

The alternatives section has been described as the "core" of the EIR. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.) An adequate EIR must describe a reasonable range of alternatives. (Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 47 Ca1.3d 376.) Unfortunately, this DEIR fails to comply with CEQA's mandate for a good-faith

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-91 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives. Instead, the DEIR restricts its analysis to alternatives which are designed to ensure the proposed project is preferred.

Response to Comment No. 15-27

The Draft EIR concludes that all potential impacts of the Proposed Project can be reduced to less than significant levels through the implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in the document. The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6) provide in part that: “An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project[.]” Although alternatives are not needed to reduce or eliminate any unavoidable significant impacts of the Project, the Draft EIR nonetheless evaluates five alternatives to the Proposed Project. One of the alternatives – the Light Manufacturing Alternative – would create potentially significant air quality (toxic air contaminants) issues, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise impacts that would not occur with the Proposed Project. This alternative would also have greater negative aesthetic and solid waste impacts than the Proposed Project, although the resulting impact would continue to be less than significant. Similar to the Proposed Project, the other four alternatives would not result in any unavoidable significant environmental impacts after mitigation. These other alternatives, however, would either not meet some of the Project objectives or meet them to a lesser degree than the Proposed Project. The Draft EIR concludes that the RAS3 Zone Alternative is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative, since it would reduce all of the potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level similar to the Proposed Project and would satisfy all 11 of the Project objectives, although to a lesser degree than the Proposed Project.

Comment No. 15-28

The EIR is required to include alternatives that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects, including impacts to aesthetics. (Guidelines, §15126(d)(2).) The Coalition, in its comments on the NOP, requested that the city consider a height-restricted RAS3 project.

Under the height-restricted RAS3 alternative, the same amount of retail space and fewer dwelling units would be constructed.. The height-restricted RAS3 alternative would satisfy all 11 project objectives. (DEIR, at p. VI.-55.) The height-restricted RAS3 alternative is also the environmentally superior alternative. (Ibid.) The height-restricted RAS-3 alternative would substantially lessen the project's significant effect on aesthetics of the surrounding neighborhood.

CEQA mandates that public agencies refrain from approving projects with significant environmental impacts when there are "feasible alternatives or mitigation measures" that can substantially lessen or avoid those impacts. (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Commission (1997) 16 Ca1.4th 105, 134.)

The DEIR incorrectly states that the RAS3-1 alternative could potentially be built out to 75 feet in height due to the lack of height restriction in RAS3-1. (DEIR, at VI-45.) However, the Coalition, in its NOP

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-92 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

comments and here again in its DEIR comments, specifically advocate for a HEIGHT-RESTRICTED RAS3 alternative. A copy of the City's General Zoning Code Design Criteria for Multiple-Dwelling Development demonstrates a number of height-restricted RAS3 options available. The Coalition requests the City appropriately consider the Coalition's height-restricted RAS 3 alternative.

Response to Comment No. 15-28

As stated on page IV.B-7 of the Draft EIR, impacts related to the change in the visual appearance and character of the Project site would be less than significant as viewed from the adjacent streets and areas surrounding the Project site. Therefore, mitigation measures or alternatives to the Proposed Project such as those recommended by the commenter are neither required nor recommended for the Project.

There are numerous variations, however, that could be assumed for each alternative to the Proposed Project. Since the Project applicant is not proposing the development of any alternative to the Proposed Project, the Draft EIR provides a conservative analysis of the possible maximum development that could occur under the existing and alterative land use and zoning designations. It is reasonable to assume that an entity that would develop the Project site with new commercial and residential uses would maximize the development potential of the site. The Draft EIR assumes an alternative that would comply with the limits of the RAS3-1 zone.

As discussed on page VI-45 of the Draft EIR, the RAS3 Zone Alternative would include the same 35,000 square feet of retail space as the Proposed Project, but would provide 123 apartment units rather than the 219 units of the Project. These buildings could provide multiple levels with a maximum height of more than 75 feet above grade since there is no height limit in the RAS3-1 zone. Since the buildings would be at up to four stories in height, this alternative assumes that parking would be provided in a subterranean and above ground structure.

The Draft EIR concludes that, similar to the Proposed Project, the RAS3 Zone Alternative would not result in any unavoidable significant environmental impacts after mitigation and it would satisfy all 11 of the Project objectives identified above, but to a lesser degree than the Proposed Project since fewer residential units would be constructed. Development of a Height Restricted RAS3 alternative as suggested would have similar visual impacts, however to a lesser degree, than the less than significant impacts of the Proposed Project.

Comment No. 15-29

The DEIR ignores the fact that the no project alternative would serve the industrial land use policy. (DEIR, at p. IV.-6. [sic]) In addition, the DEIR impermissibly assumes that both industrial alternatives would be constructed to the maximum size possible under the MRl-l zone designation. (DEIR, at p. IV.- 23. [sic]) The DEIR goes on to state that the industrial alternative, at maximum build-out, would be similar in height and scale to surrounding properties. (DEIR, at p. IV-24. [sic]) These conclusions are without any supporting evidence.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-93 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Response to Comment No. 15-29

As discussed on page IV.H-11 of the Draft EIR, Planning staff has preliminarily recommended the Project site be designated an industrial preservation area, although no formal recommendation has been made to the Planning Commission. Accordingly, the City has not adopted any specific policies that would affect the rezoning of industrial sites to ones with non-industrial uses. The interim procedures articulated by the director of Planning require such projects to file a zone change and plan amendment. As a result, based on the approval of the requested entitlements, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plans or policies currently adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the Project. Additionally, policies involving the preservation of industrial land, when and if adopted by the City, would not be adopted for the purpose of mitigating or avoiding an environmental impact but rather to address economic impacts from the loss of industrial land. These same findings would be applicable to each of the alternatives discussed in the Draft EIR or recommended by the commenter.

There are numerous variations that could be assumed for each alternative to the Proposed Project. Since the Project applicant is not proposing the development of any alternative to the Proposed Project, the Draft EIR provides a conservative analysis of the possible maximum development that could occur under the existing and alterative land use and zoning designations. It is reasonable to assume that an entity that would develop the Project site with new studio (Alternative B: Studio Alternative) or light industrial (Alternative C: Light Manufacturing Alternative) uses would maximize the development potential of the site. A large sound stage could be developed with offices on upper floors. Likewise, a large manufacturing facility could be developed with offices on upper floors. The Draft EIR assumes alternatives that would comply with the limits of the MR1-1 zone.

Comment Letter No. 15a

La Brea-Willoughby Coalition Proposal

Comment No. 15a-1

See the La Brea-Willoughby Coalition Proposal renderings provided as Comment Letter No. 15a in Appendix A to this Final EIR.

Response to Comment No. 15a-1

These renderings illustrate the Height Restricted RAS3 Alternative recommended for the Project by the La Brea-Willoughby Coalition. See the Response to Comment 15-28 regarding this variation of the RAS3 Alternative.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-94 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 15b

Isabelle Duvivier, Duvivier Architects

Comment No. 15b-1

I have been asked to comment on a 6-story proposed project to be developed on a two acre site located at Willoughby Street between La Brea Avenue and Formosa Avenue. Currently on the site there are one and two story-high buildings.

I was also asked to prepare a site plan, massing model and unit plans for a more environmental and neighborhood friendly alternative development plan to the applicant's RAS-4 proposed project. The alternative project design, and comparative massing of the applicant's proposal and the alternative proposal, is attached to this report.

The adjacent commercial neighborhood on La Brea is mostly one and two story industrial and commercial buildings. The exception is at the intersection of La Brea Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard, which is two blocks away from the project site. At this intersection of these two major arterials is located a large mall complex which includes restaurants, cafes and clothing stores. The maximum height of this mall complex is 55 feet. In general, as one moves south of this intersection, the scale rapidly decreases to one and two story mixed-use buildings.

In contrast, the maximum height of the applicant's proposed project is 75 feet, 20 feet higher than that of the retail and commercial complex just north of the subject project site. The immediately adjacent residential neighborhood to the west and south of the proposed development site is mostly one-story single family bungalows with some two-story, low-density garden apartment complexes located on Willoughby Street.

In my professional opinion, the applicant's project, as currently proposed, will have a significant negative impact on existing single neighborhood. Most significantly, it is out of scale and character with the adjacent residential and commercial communities. It dwarfs the other businesses on La Brea, is incredibly impactful to the modest single-family homes across the street from it and provides little public benefit, such as open space or shade trees. This project would be better suited at the intersection of two arterials not at this small residential street, Willoughby. I recommend the proposed project be redesigned to be more integrated with the existing land-uses, building height and density The alternative project, an RAS-3 design, is both feasible at this location and results in less impacts than the applicant's proposed RAS-4 project.

Response to Comment No. 15b-1

See the Response to Comment 15-28.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-95 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 15c

Robert M. Shanteau, Ph.D., P.E.

Comment No. 15c-1

At your request, I have reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis for the La Brea Gateway project dated August 2007 (TIA) and the associated Draft Environmental Impact Report dated May 2008 (DEIR). In summary, the TIA has several flaws that make it impossible to determine whether the proposed project will result in significant impacts that are not identified in the TIA.

Since the DEIR focuses on the significant impacts identified in the TIA, it too is flawed. I believe that it is impossible to determine the traffic impacts of the proposed project without at least a supplemental traffic impact study that accurately identifies the traffic impacts from the project.

Response to Comment No. 15c-1

As stated in this introduction, this letter raises issues with respect to traffic and circulation impacts. The Responses to Comment Nos. 15c-2 through 15c-30 address these issues.

Comment No. 15c-2

1. TIA fails to identify Santa Monica Blvd as State Highway 2

The project site map in Figure 1 on page 3 of the TIA shows Santa Monica Blvd. as State Highway 2. On page 2 the TIA lists three intersections on Santa Monica Blvd. as being selected for study.

On the other hand, I understand that Caltrans has been trying to relinquish the non-freeway portions of State Highway 2 to the local jurisdictions through which it runs. Apparently the portions within the City of West Hollywood and the City of Santa Monica have already been relinquished, leaving the portion within the City of Los Angeles as a State highway. The TIA fails to acknowledge whether or not Santa Monica Blvd. is a State highway. In fact, the word "Caltrans" is not even mentioned in the TIA.

2. TIA fails to recognize that a Caltrans review might be necessary

The enclosed Caltrans publication entitled Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, December 2002 (Guide) states on page 1, 'The intent of this guide is to provide a starting point and a consistent basis in which Caltrans evaluates traffic impacts to State highway facilities .... Caltrans reviews federal, State, and local agency development projects, and land use change proposals for their potential impact to State highway facilities."

On page 2, the Guide adds that a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) is needed when a project generates 1 to 49 peak hour trips assigned to a State highway facility if one of several conditions is met, including, "Affected State highway facilities [are] experiencing significant delay; unstable or forced traffic flow conditions (LOS 'E' or 'F')." (LOS stands for Level of Service.) In Table 4 on page 19, the TIA shows the

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-96 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

intersection of Santa Monica/La Brea as currently operating at LOS F and Santa Monica/Highland operating at LOS D during the PM peak hour. Santa Monica/La Brea is in the City of West Hollywood and Santa Monica/Highland is in the City of Los Angeles.

3. TIA fails to recognize that a consultation with Caltrans is recommended

On page 2 the Guide states, "Consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans, and those preparing the TIS is recommended before commencing work on the study to establish the appropriate scope." There is no evidence that Caltrans was consulted during the preparation of the TIA.

Note also that although the Nap in all likelihood was sent to Caltrans District 07, there is no response from Caltrans to the Nap in the DEIR.

4. TIA fails to follow Caltrans Guidance

As noted above, Caltrans requires that a TIS for a project that impacts a State highway follow the procedures in the Guide.

Many procedures in the Caltrans Guide, however, are not followed in the TIA, in particular the traffic impact analysis methodology. On page 2 the Guide states, "Measures of effectiveness for level of service definitions [are] located in the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council." As described in the next point, the TIA instead uses an outdated traffic impact analysis methodology.

Response to Comment No. 15c-2

The Traffic Impact Analysis (page 8) and Draft EIR correctly identify Santa Monica Boulevard as a major highway and not a State Highway as suggested by the commenter. Caltrans submitted a comment letter in response to the Draft EIR (Comment Letter No. 4) and specifically states that Santa Monica Boulevard – formerly State Route 2 – has been relinquished and is not longer a State Facility, and that no further review by Caltrans is required or necessary.

Comment No. 15c-3

5. TIA uses an outdated traffic impact analysis methodology

On page 17, the TIA states, "The traffic conditions analysis was conducted using the Critical Movement Analysis (CMA) method for the study intersections located in the City of Los Angeles." Critical Movement Analysis is based on a document called Transportation Research Circular 212: Interim Materials on Highway Capacity, 1980. Circular 212 used volume to capacity ratio (V/C) as a simplified method of analyzing traffic signal operation. These deficiencies were recognized at the national level when, in 1985, Circular 212 was superseded by the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The HCM has been modified and refined so that today it is a quite sophisticated method of analyzing signal operations and has been incorporated into several computer packages for use in performing traffic impact studies. Several such packages are listed on page 5 of the Caltrans Guide.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-97 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Shortly after its introduction in 1985, the HCM method was accepted by most traffic engineers in the United States for analyzing issues related to highway capacity, including traffic signals. The Caltrans Guide, for instance, includes the following definition, '''Level of service' as defined in the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council."

At its most basic level, the HCM uses control delay per vehicle (i.e., delay caused by the signal) as the measure of effectiveness of signal operation. The advantages of using the HCM method over the CMA method include: a) CMA addresses only VIC ratio and does not address delay, congestion, queues, signal timing, signal phasing, or signal coordination b) CMA treats the highway network as a bunch of individual intersections instead of as the system it is c) CMA allows only changes in the number of lanes or lane configuration as mitigations and does not allow for changes in signal timing, signal phasing, or coordination patterns as mitigation d) CMA does not address pedestrians

These failures of the CMA method lead in turn to the TIA not identifying accurately the impacts caused by a proposed project

6. Guidelines for the preparation of Traffic 1mpact Analyses in 2004 Congestion Management Plan for Los Angles County, Appendix D also mistakenly use CMA

On page 43, the TIA refers to the county Congestion Management Program (CMP). Unfortunately, the CMP as well as most jurisdictions in Southern California use the CMA method to analyze signal operation. This has led inevitably to widespread failures in Southern California to accurately identify significant traffic impacts from new projects.

Response to Comment No. 15c-3

The commenter suggests that the Critical Movement Analysis (CMA) procedure for defining traffic impacts is out dated and should not be used. However, the City of Los Angeles along with the majority of other jurisdictions in Los Angeles County including Los Angeles County and the LA County Congestion Management Program all recognize the CMA procedure as a valid tool for measuring an intersection’s capacity. Pursuant to the LADOT policies and guidelines, all project traffic impact analyses must use the CMA procedure to promote consistency in the review of land development projects within the City of Los Angeles. The fact that the commenter disagrees with LADOT adopted policies and procedures does not invalidate the results of the traffic impact analysis that is consistent with those policies.

The CMA level of service (LOS) should not be confused with delay-based levels of service such as the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Both methods provide information about the performance of an intersection but are measuring different objective functions. CMA LOS does not predict delay, but it can

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-98 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

be used to predict how often an intersection will experience congestion. Its intended application is for traffic impact studies, roadway design and congestion management programs.

The commenter recommends using procedures and methodologies contained in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), a sophisticated computerized program generally used in traffic operations and for designing traffic signal timing applications and not traffic impact analyses. The reason is because the HCM programmer can make small adjustments to the inputs of the program, such as the traffic signal timing, which allows the programmer to significantly improve the reported LOS making the results difficult to review and validate for a traffic impact analysis.

A skilled HCM user can manipulate these input values to give the desired result. In many cases, an optimal timing plan can mask a capacity deficiency. It is possible to get HCM LOS D with an intersection volume-to-capacity ratio of 1.1 or higher. For these reasons, planning applications such as the CMA procedures that utilize the volume-to-capacity ratio method are preferred since the procedure is easy to calculate, provides a higher degree of certainty, better suited for measuring traffic impacts and allows for a comprehensive review of a larger study area.

Comment No. 15c-4

7. The thresholds for level of significance at signalized intersections do not address the congested conditions in the project area

On page 38, the TIA lists the thresholds for level of significance at signalized intersections already operating at level of service (LOS) E or F as a 1% increase in VIC ratio for the City of Los Angeles and 2% for the City of West Hollywood.

The HCM method, however, makes it clear that any additional traffic at an LOS E or F intersection ,could be significant. In particular, although adding traffic to an intersection that is already failing cannot make its LOS any worse (since LOS F is as low as LOS goes), the delay per vehicle will continue to increase exponentially as more traffic is added. So instead of basing the criteria for level of significance on VIC ratio, as the TIA does, the criteria should be based on delay per vehicle, as the Caltrans Guide says to do.

Also, the Caltrans Guide does not allow a project to increase the delay per vehicle at a State intersection that is already operating at a low level of service. In fact, on page 1 the Caltrans guide states, "If an existing State highway facility is operating at less than the appropriate target LOS, the existing MOE [Measure of Effectiveness] should be maintained." On page C-2 of the Caltrans Guide, the MOE for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay per vehicle.

Response to Comment No. 15c-4

The change in the intersection volume-to-capacity ratio by a project defines the traffic impact which is then compared to the adopted significance thresholds which are set for LOS C, D, E and F conditions. A delay based significance threshold procedure using the HCM procedure is not defined in the City of Los Angeles procedures. Furthermore, as stated previously, a skilled HCM user can manipulate the input

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-99 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

values to give the desired delay result. Contrary to the commenter’s statements, the HCM methodology does not take into account the potential impact of downstream congestion on intersection operations. The HCM procedures for freeway facilities that are used by Caltrans operations are not relevant to city roadways and intersections controlled by traffic signals.

The City of Los Angeles’ CEQA review requirements does not include a zero growth (impact) policy for congested areas. Rather, a sliding scale of growth is allowed based on the level of traffic congestion up to the significance threshold at which traffic mitigation is necessary. Caltrans’s review criterion for freeways is not relevant to this analysis.

Comment No. 15c-5

8. The Study Area in the TIA is too small, particularly along Santa Monica Blvd. (State Highway 2)

Because of existing congestion in area, even small increases in traffic far from project can be significant. Because the TIA uses the CMA method, it does not recognize this fact. If it were to use the HCM method instead, the TIA would recognize this fact immediately.

In particular, since the Caltrans Guide does not allow a project to significantly impact State highway intersections that are already operating at a poor level of service, all intersections along Santa Monica Blvd. (State Highway 2) that serve any project traffic and are already operating at a poor level of service should be included in the Study Area.

Response to Comment No. 15c-5

The study area was selected in consultation with, and approved by, LADOT based on the anticipated traffic generation of the Proposed Project, the Project distribution, the street network and the traffic impact thresholds used by the City of Los Angeles. Also see the Responses to Comment Nos. 15c-2 through 15C-4.

Comment No. 15c-6

9. Four signalized intersections and eight all-way stop intersections within the Study Area are not analyzed in the TIA

Page 2 of the TIA lists the intersections it studied. These intersections form the boundary of the Study Area, which includes the rectangular area bounded by Melrose Ave. to the south, Poinsettia PI. to the west, Santa Monica Blvd. to the north, and Highland Ave. to the west, plus La Brea Blvd. between Beverly Blvd. to the south and Sunset Blvd. to the north. According to Transportation Impact Analyses for Site Development: A Proposed Recommended Practice, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C., 2005, the TIA should include all important intersection in the Study Area.

Certainly if an intersection is within a Study Area and is important enough to signalize, it is important enough to be studied in a TIA. A review of Google Maps Street Views revealed that there are four

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-100 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

signalized intersections within the Study Area that were not studied in the TIA: La Brea/Oakwood, La Brea Clinton, Melrose/Mansfield, and Santa Monica/Orange.

It can also be argued that if an intersection within the Study Area is important enough to control with an all-way stop, it is important enough to be studied in a TIA. After all, if the intersections were not important, they would be controlled with stop signs in only two directions. A review of Google Maps Street Views revealed that there are eight all-way stop intersections within the Study Area that were not studied in the TIA: Waring/Poinsettia, Waring/Alta Vista, Waring/Formosa, Waring/Detroit, Waring/Mansfield, Willoughby/Alta Vista, Willoughby/Orange, and Romaine/Orange.

Because the TIA did not analyze these 4 signalized intersections and 8 all-way stop intersections that are within the bounds of the Study Area, it is impossible to determine whether the proposed project would have any significant impacts at those intersections.

Response to Comment No. 15c-6

A critical movement analysis (“CMA”) of the existing baseline and future traffic conditions analysis was completed at those locations in the study area expected to have the highest potential for significant traffic impacts. Morning and afternoon peak hour conditions were evaluated at sixteen key intersections selected by LADOT for review. Consistent with standard LADOT policy, certain low volume intersections or intersections with minimal project traffic need not be included specifically in a traffic study. Other higher volume intersections are better indicators of potentially significant traffic impacts than low volume intersections with more capacity, which are much less likely to be significantly impact per the LADOT thresholds of significance. The locations identified in this comment are low volume intersections.

Comment No. 15c-7

10. The TIA does not identify three study intersections as subject to Caltrans jurisdiction

Page 2 of the TIA contains a list of the 16 intersections that were selected by the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) to be studied. The list shows Santa Monica/Formosa and Santa Monica/La Brea as being in the City of West Hollywood and Santa Monica/Highland as being in the City of Los Angeles. But because Santa Monica Blvd. between Lincoln Blvd. in Santa Monica and State Highway 101 in Los Angeles is also State Highway 2, all three of those intersections are actually under the jurisdiction of Caltrans.

Response to Comment No. 15c-7

Santa Monica Boulevard is not a state facility within the study area and additional Caltrans review is not required. See the Response to Comment No. 15c-2.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-101 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment No. 15c-8

11. The City of West Hollywood was not consulted in the preparation of the TIA

On page 1, the TIA states, "This traffic study was prepared using procedures adopted by the City of Los Angeles and the City of West Hollywood to evaluate the potential traffic impacts of the proposed project." Although the TIA describes the use of some information from the City of West Hollywood, such as the development list mentioned on page 1 and the threshold criteria mentioned on page 38, there is no evidence that the City of West Hollywood was actually consulted during the preparation of the TIA. For instance, in describing the selection of intersections to be studied, the TIA states on page 2, "The following 16 intersections have been selected by the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation for this traffic impact study." So the City of West Hollywood had no input in the selection of the the [sic] study intersections. Further evidence that the City of West Hollywood was not consulted is this statement on the same page: "[T]hree residential street segments have been selected by the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation for analysis of potential project-related traffic impacts." So the City of West Hollywood was not consulted on the selection of residential street segments even though its city limits are only a block north and about 4 blocks west of the proposed project site, as shown in the map on page 3 of the TIA.

Response to Comment No. 15c-8

The City of West Hollywood was contacted for a listing of projects in that City for the preparation of the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Proposed Project. All projects that were identified by the City of West Hollywood are included in the lists of related projects in the Traffic Impact Analysis and the Draft EIR. Specifically, the following intersections within or adjacent to the City of West Hollywood are analyzed in the Traffic Impact Analysis:

2) La Brea Avenue and Fountain Avenue (boundary intersection); 3) Santa Monica Boulevard and Formosa Avenue (City of West Hollywood); 4) Santa Monica Boulevard and La Brea Avenue (City of West Hollywood); 6) La Brea Avenue and Romaine Street (boundary intersection).

Comment No. 15c-9

12. The TIA does not include the community land use maps for the portion of the Study Area within the City of West Hollywood

On page 6, the TIA states, "The community land use map for the Study Area is provided in Appendix A." In reality, Appendix A to the TIA contains only the land use map for the Hollywood portion of Los Angeles, even though a large part of the Study Area is in the City of West Hollywood. Without a land use map for the entire Study Area, it is impossible to determine whether the project has significant impacts related to the land use map in the City of West Hollywood.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-102 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Response to Comment No. 15c-9

The land use information contained in the Traffic Impact Analysis was to provide the reader with general information; not to address land use impacts. The potential land use impacts of the Proposed Project are addressed in Section IV.H Land Use and Planning of the Draft EIR, which focuses on the consistency of the Project with applicable policies of the City of Los Angeles Hollywood Community Plan.

Comment No. 15c-10

13. The TIA does not include circulation maps, standard street dimensions, or standard street conditions for the portion of the Study Area within the City of West Hollywood

On page 6, the TIA states, "The community plan street designations, street standards and street plans are contained in Appendix B" In reality, Appendix B to the TIA contains only the community plan street designations, street standards and street plans for the Hollywood portion of Los Angeles, even though a large part of the Study Area is in the City of West Hollywood. Without the community plan street designations, street standards and street plans for the entire Study Area, it is impossible to determine whether the project has significant impacts related to the circulation maps, standard street dimensions, or standard street conditions in the City of West Hollywood.

Response to Comment No. 15c-10

The traffic impacts of the Proposed Project are evaluated using the CMA methodology required by the City of Los Angeles. The characteristics and designations of the streets and intersection selected for analysis are provided in Chapter 3 of the Traffic Impact Analysis. The individual thresholds of significance for the City of Los Angeles and the City of West Hollywood are identified on page 38 of the Traffic Impact Analysis and page IV.L-8 of the Draft EIR.

Comment No. 15c-11

14. The TIA does not address concerns about traffic congestion in the project area expressed in responses to NOP

One of the responses is from resident Dakota Sands, who says, "La Brea & Willoughby is a very congested ... area" Another response is from resident Patrice Dally, who says, "[C]ommuters in and passing through the area seek to avoid the F-class intersection of La Brea and Santa Monica." She adds, [T]raffic can barely move east-west on major arteries (Melrose and Santa Monica)." Nowhere in the TIA is there a reference to the concerns expressed in these comments.

Response to Comment No. 15c-11

Existing traffic level of service conditions as noted in the responses to the NOP are reported in the Traffic Study, table 4, page 19 with LOS conditions for future without and with the Proposed Project in tables 7 and 8, respectively. These tables indicate that La Brea Avenue is congested

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-103 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

during peak hours as expressed in the response to the NOP. Based on these calculated LOS values, the traffic impacts of the Proposed Project were addressed using the City of Los Angeles CEQA guidelines.

Comment No. 15c-12

15. Some turning counts in the TIA appear to be of demand instead of capacity

At the Santa Monica/La Brea intersection, for example, the TIA reports in Table 7 on page 35 that the existing VIC is 0.973 during the AM peak hour and 1.044 during the PM peak hour. Yet residents and business owners in the area report that the intersection is very congested. The fact that the VIC ratio is almost 1.0 during the peak hours suggests that the personnel sent out to do the turning counts were instructed only to count the number of vehicles passing through the intersection.

If the intersection was operating at capacity at the time of the count, then those personnel were counting only those vehicles able to enter the intersection, not the number that wanted to. Therefore they were counting the capacity of the intersection and not the demand. This basic error in traffic counting results in underestimating the demand, which leads to inaccurate assessments .of existing conditions, which in turn leads to underestimating future impacts.

Response to Comment No. 15c-12

Intersection capacity calculations require certain input information to conduct a capacity analysis. Both the CMA and HCS methodologies require volume data and intersection operating characteristics to estimate the intersection LOS or delay. The commenter insists that the HCS methodology is better suited for measuring the traffic impacts, which is true if the measurement objective is delay based. However, the City of Los Angeles uses a different measurement tool, the volume-to-capacity ratio, to objectively calculate the level of a project traffic impact.

Comment No. 15c-13

16. The TIA estimates existing level of service (LOS) instead of measuring it

Because the HCM method uses delay as its measure of evaluation and because delay is measurable in the field, it is possible to accurately measure the existing LOS based on field observations.

Instead, the TIA uses the CMA method to estimate the existing VIC ratio based on a formula that uses only the turning counts and number of lanes at an intersection. But because the V/C ratio is not directly measurable nor something that is experienced by the driver, it is difficult for the analyst to know whether the results are reasonable. Had the analyst actually visited the various study intersections during the AM and PM peak hours, he/she would have seen immediately that the V/C estimates in the TIA were unreasonable, particularly for the congested intersections.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-104 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Response to Comment No. 15c-13

See the Responses to Comment Nos. 15c-3 and 15c-12.

Comment No. 15c-14

17. The TIA errs in subtracting studio trip generation from project trip generation

In Table 2 on page 11, the TIA subtracts KCOP studio/office trips from the project trips to find the net project trips.

According to the Historic Resource Report on page 4 in Appendix D of the DEIR, KCOP-TV abandoned use of the project location some time after 2002, The traffic counts were taken in late April and early May 2007. By that time, the property had long ceased being a television studio and was instead being rented by individual production companies, It is unknown whether any such rentals were occurring at the time the traffic counts were taken. It would have been a relatively simple matter to count the driveways or interview people arriving and departing the project site at the same time as the counts were taken, but that was not done. Without knowing the use of the property at the time of the counts, it is impossible to know how much traffic it was generating. Therefore, it was improper for the TIA to subtract the studio trip generation from the project trip generation.

Response to Comment No. 15c-14

The first environmental application for the Project’s Traffic Impact Analysis was submitted to the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation in December 2004 resulting in an approved Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The first comprehensive Traffic Impact Analysis was submitted to LADOT in January 2005. LADOT approved the January 2005 Traffic Impact Analysis in May 2005. Upon commencing a comprehensive EIR for the Project, the 2005 Traffic Impact Analysis was updated to August 2007. The Project applicant has been diligently pursuing a reuse of this site since early 2004.

The LADOT traffic credit requirement for 6 months of occupancy within the past 2 years is satisfied with the first submittal of the environmental documents in December 2004 for the Project. While opposition to the Project has extended the time frame for an occupancy date, those actions do not change the December 2004 filing date for the Project and the baseline for the initial Project filing. Notwithstanding, the 2-year policy is not an inflexible rule. Note that the LADOT policy states that that is used generally, but provides flexibility for other circumstances. Defining the baseline based solely on present traffic conditions at the project site would be inaccurate given the existing buildings, ongoing use by other studio production companies and a prior City Planning Commission approval for the mixed-use building.

A more accurate baseline determination, which better describes prior traffic conditions and is representative of the amount of traffic historically produced by the existing uses at the Project site, includes using full utilization of the Project site. This is consistent with the Project applicant’s current rights to fully re-lease and occupy all of the space in the existing buildings. Pursuant to LADOT policy,

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-105 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

use credits were applied using an approved trip generation rate for the prior uses. This is also consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15125.

Comment No. 15c-15

18. Trip Generation in the TIA is based on ITE Trip Generation rather than on actual observations in the area

A press release issued by Los Angeles Councilwoman Wendy Greuel (Councilmembers Greuel and Rosendahl, City Planning, LADOT, demand accuracy in Los Angeles Traffic Projections, July 30, 2007) stated, "All new development generates travel and parking demands that affect traffic flow and parking in surrounding areas. In order to estimate these impacts and ensure that appropriate mitigation is implemented, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation uses national average trip standards to project the level of traffic generated by new construction. The national trip standards average congestion figures from states as diverse as New York and Georgia in order to predict congestion levels in Los Angeles. It is unclear these national averages accurately reflect the extreme reliance on automobiles and the sprawling density unique to Los Angeles."

The press release also states, "Any inaccuracy in the trip generation formula could result in an increase in traffic congestion around new buildings and an inadequate amount of mitigation measures."

Councilwoman Greuel subsequently introduced a motion "that the City Council direct the Department of Transportation to report on the extent to which the national trip standards, which are currently used to evaluate new development, accurately reflect the unique conditions found in Los Angeles. Specifically, the report should address whether the national standards properly calculate new development's impact on transportation infrastructure, taking into account the City's goal to increase transit oriented developments and other smart growth strategies."

In the preamble to her motion, Councilwoman Greuel concludes that "To effectively provide solutions to our congestion crisis, we must have an accurate picture of the problem."

In addition to locally validated trip generation numbers, adoption of the HCM method by the City of Los Angeles as the official methodology for analyzing a project's traffic impacts would go a long way towards helping the City achieve an accurate picture of the congestion crisis that the Councilwoman is concerned about.

Response to Comment No. 15c-15

Traffic-generating characteristics of commercial developments have been surveyed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The results of the traffic generation studies have been published in a handbook titled Trip Generation, 7th Edition. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 7th Edition publication contains data from over 4,250 trip generation studies submitted to ITE. This publication of traffic generation data has become the industry standard for estimating traffic generation of different land uses and is the data recommended in the LADOT Traffic Study Policies and

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-106 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Procedures and the data identified in the MOU for the Project traffic Impact Analysis. The commenter suggests that the national database does not representative of Los Angeles land uses. This opinion is unsupported by any factual data

Comment No. 15c-16

19. The DEIR inaccurately describes the project as mixed-use development

Both on its cover page and on page I-1, the DEIR describes the project as being a mixed-use development.

The definition of mixed-use development requires (Robert E. Witherspoon, et al. 1976. Mixed-use Development: New Ways of Land Use. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute): a) Three or more significant revenue-producing uses b) Significant functional and physical integration of project components c) Development in conformance with a coherent plan

The proposed project consists of only two uses: 219 apartments and 35,000 square feet of commercial retail space (identified as a supermarket). Other possible uses that would create a more functionally integrated project include light industrial, office, restaurant, entertainment and cultural components. It does not appear that the proposed project is part of a coherent plan for the neighborhood that would place complementary uses within walking distance or reachable via high capacity public transit.

Therefore the proposed project does not meet the definition of a mixed-use development.

Response to Comment No. 15c-16

The commenter sites a 30-year old article on mixed-use development that defines a mixed-use project as 3 or more uses. Rather than cite an out dated article on mixed-use, the project clearly fits within the definition of mixed-use as described in the March 2001 Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice by ITE. The ITE definition of a mixed-use development, recognized by LADOT, is “a single real-estate project that consists of two or more ITE land use classification between which trips can be made without using the off-site roadway system.” The key characteristic of a multi-use development is that trips among the land uses can be made onsite and these internal trips are not made on the adjacent street. Here, the Project consists of two ITE land use classifications: residential and commercial. The Project residents could shop or work in the supermarket being proposed without generating a vehicle trip

Comment No. 15c-17

20. Because the proposed project is not actually mixed-use, most project-generated trips will be made by automobile

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-107 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

In the context of a TIA, a major advantage of mixed-use development is trip reduction. In this project, however, most of the employed residents will need to commute to jobs off-site. And because jobs in the Los Angeles area tend to be dispersed, they are not served well by public transit (Near The Rails But Still On The Road: Research Casts Doubt On The Region’s Strategy of Pushing Transit-Oriented Residential Projects To Get People Out Of Cars, by Sharon Bernstein and Francisco Vara-Orta, LA Times, June 30, 2007). The conclusion is that most residents will commute by private automobile.

The TIA confirms this conclusion when it shows in Table 1 on page II that only 10% of trips generated by the project will take transit. On pg. IVL-2l, however, the DEIR states that according to the CMP Guidelines, transit use will be 5-7%, so even the relatively small transit use percentage in the TIA may be overstated. If so, then the TIA will have underestimated the project impacts.

The TIA does not even mention how many trips will be made by walking or bicycling, so it must be assumed that these two modes will serve a negligible number of trips generated by the project. restaurants, entertainment, and cultural venues.

Response to Comment No. 15c-17

The focus of a traffic impact study is to analyze the traffic impact of a project. The use of conservative assumptions that maximize the estimated vehicle trips generated by the project does not under estimate the traffic impacts as suggested by the commenter or make it less mixed-use. See the Response to Comment No. 15c-16. To be conservative and as requested by LADOT, it should be noted that the trip generation estimates for the Proposed Project did not assume any discount for internal capture trips between the market and the on-site residents.

Comment No. 15c-18

21. The TIA dismisses impacts to intersections with poor LOS

According to Table 8 on pg. 5 of the TIA, the intersections of La Brea/Sunset, La Brea/Fountain, Santa Monica/Formosa, Santa Monica/La Brea, Santa Monica/Highland, Melrose/La Brea, and Melrose/Highland will operate at LOS E or F either with or without the proposed project. But since project traffic contributes less than 1% to the VIC ratio under future traffic conditions (2% for West Hollywood), then the additional traffic does not exceed the allowable thresholds and can be ignored.

Such a conclusion is ridiculous on its face, of course. The TIA predicts that the Santa Monica/La Brea intersection, for instance, will be operating at 32.1% beyond capacity under future conditions without the project and 33.5% beyond capacity with the project. A proper HCM analysis using delay would show that the more an intersection is operating beyond capacity, the more the impact of a small increase in traffic. At Santa Monica/La Brea, the 1.4% increase in traffic attributable to the project would result in a very large and certainly significant impact on traffic congestion.

This is why on page 1 the Caltrans Guide states that no increase in delay per vehicle is allowed for intersections that are already operating poorly. In reviewing other TIAs in the Los Angeles area it is

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-108 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

apparent that Caltrans District 07 environmental review personnel sometimes allow local agencies to use the CMA method as well as their own thresholds for level of significance on State highways, but only the HCM method along with the thresholds in the Caltrans Guide have been vetted and officially recognized by Caltrans.

Response to Comment No. 15c-18

See the Response to Comment No. 15c-4.

Comment No. 15c-19

22. The TIA fails to recognize a large increase in traffic at Santa Monica/La Brea from 138 other development projects, the the [sic] impact of each of which is below the threshold for the level of significance

In Table 5 on pages 23-28, the TIA lists 138 other development projects located within the study area that are either under construction or planned. On page 22, the TIA states, "The cumulative traffic impact of future traffic growth has been calculated by adding the existing traffic volume, the ambient growth factor and traffic from these other development projects." Also on page 22, the TIA assumes an ambient growth rate of "l % per year to 2010". Since the TIA was prepared in 2007, the ambient growth would therefore be 3% total.

Table 4 on page 19 shows the existing V/C ratio without the project for Santa Monica/La Brea (intersection #4) to be 0.973 during the PM peak hour. Table 8 on page 39 of the TIA shows the future VIC ratio without the project for Santa Monica/La Brea to be 1.321 during the PM peak hour. So the percentage increase in V/C ratio from existing to future conditions (without the project) is 35.8%. Of this, 3% is ambient growth, so the rest, 32.8%, is from the 138 other development projects listed in Table 5. This is a very large increase and is enough to cause serious congestion and very large delays at the intersection. So a 32.8% increase in traffic at an already congested intersection is certainly a significant impact.

What is important to note, however, is that each project in the City of Los Angeles and the City of West Hollywood is supposed to have an impact below the threshold for the level of significance in each city (page 38 of the TIA lists these as 1% and 2% respectively for LOS E/F intersections). Collectively, though, the 32.8% impact is far higher than the threshold for the level of significance.

Presumably, each city selected a threshold for the level of significance that it considered negligible for any single project. This may work OK for a few projects, but as the number of projects increases, the net impact from those projects can be quite significant. Another way to say this is that the total impact of a bunch of negligible impacts is not negligible.

Clearly, if the number of projects is potentially very large, as it is in the City of Los Angeles or the City of West Hollywood, the only reasonable threshold for the level of significance at an already congested

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-109 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

intersection is zero. In fact, the Caltrans Guide does just this by allowing no increase in delay at an intersection operating at LOS E/F.

Response to Comment No. 15c-19

As discussed in the Traffic Impact Analysis and on pages IV.L-11 through IV.L-18 of the Draft EIR, a cumulative traffic impact analyses is provided. Table IV.L-6 of the Draft EIR lists the related projects and associated traffic generation that was considered in the cumulative impact analysis. The related project list consists of all potential projects located within the study area, and was obtained from LADOT, City Planning, and the City of West Hollywood. The locations of the related projects are depicted in Figure II-10 of the Draft EIR. In addition, the cumulative impact analysis includes an ambient growth factor of one percent per year in order to account for any smaller or unknown related projects in the vicinity of the Project site.

Thus, the cumulative impacts analysis includes: (1) the effects of past projects, as part of the environmental baseline; (2) the effects of current projects, included in the related projects list and ambient growth; and (3) probable future projects, also included in the related projects list and ambient growth. Therefore, the cumulative effect of potential traffic growth is analyzed with the results reported in Table 7, page 35 of the Traffic Impact Analysis and Table IV.L-7 of the Draft EIR.

Pursuant to the City of Los Angeles Policies and using industry standard methodologies, the traffic impact of the Project’s net change in traffic volume was calculated by adding the Project traffic volume to the “cumulative without project” traffic volume. Comparing the changes in the traffic conditions provides the information to determine if the Project generated traffic increases creates a significant impact on the study area intersections. According to the standards adopted by the City of Los Angeles, a project traffic impact is considered significant if the related increase in the V/C value equals or exceeds the thresholds shown below.

City of Los Angeles Thresholds: LOS Final V/C Value Increase in V/C Value C ≥ 0.70 - 0.79 +0.04 D 0.080 – 0.89 +0.02 E – F ≥ 0.90 +0.01 or more

For the City of West Hollywood, the threshold is a 2% increase in the V/C value for intersection operating at LOS E or F.

As is discussed in the Traffic Impact Analysis and the Draft EIR, two of the study intersections would be significantly impacted by Project-generated traffic prior to the implementation of mitigation measures.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-110 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

as the incremental traffic from related projects and ambient growth and the impact from just project traffic, as directed by the LADOT Traffic Study Policies and Procedures.

Comment No. 15c-20

23. The TIA fails to determine that the project will result in significant impacts on at least one Caltrans intersection

Page 38 of the TIA contains criteria adopted by the City of Los Angeles and the City of West Hollywood for determining whether traffic impacts are significant. It contains no similar criteria for intersections under Caltrans jurisdiction. According to page 1 of the Caltrans Guide, no increase in delay per vehicle is allowed for intersections that are already operating poorly. Since the project will add traffic to at least one Caltrans intersection that is already operating poorly (Santa Monica/La Brea), the impact there will be significant.

Response to Comment No. 15c-20

See the Response to Comment No. 15c-3.

Comment No. 15c-21

24. Mitigation L-2 will narrow the sidewalk adjacent to the proposed project

Mitigation L-2 on page IV.L-24 of the DEIR states, "The north side of Willoughby Avenue shall be widened by five feet from La Brea Avenue westerly to the proposed commercial driveway opposite Detroit Street (approximately 300 feet) to allow for the installation of wider traffic lanes to facilitate the movement of eastbound right-turns (i.e., functional right-turn lane) on Willoughby Avenue at La Brea Avenue." This mitigation is also described on page 45 of the TIA. The widening on Willoughby Ave. is shown on the site plan on page 5 of the TIA, however the five feet is taken from the sidewalk rather than from the building footprint.

This narrowing of the sidewalk adjacent to the proposed project could have an impact on pedestrians, but this issue is not discussed in the TIA. Therefore, it is impossible to determine whether the mitigation measure itself would result in significant impacts to pedestrians.

Response to Comment No. 15c-21

Based on the comments submitted by LADOT, the Project applicant is proposing a 12-foot sidewalk on the north side of Willoughby Avenue to be consistent with the City-wide standard for 12-foot sidewalk width for major arterials in lieu of the current 10-foot side walk standard for local streets. It is recommend that a new 2 foot sidewalk easement be provided on the north side of Willoughby Avenue and La Brea Avenue moving west to the east side of Detroit Street. This will allow for the planned 5-foot street widening along this section of the north side of Willoughby Avenue and maintain a 12-foot wide sidewalk area with landscaping elements to enhance the pedestrian walk area. Final design approval of

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-111 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

the sidewalk area and landscaping elements will be subject to the Director of Planning approval in consultation with Council’s Office and Department of Transportation.

Comment No. 15c-22

25. Mitigation L-3 will cither narrow the sidewalk on Romaine Avenue or take land from the adjoining property owners

Mitigation L-3 on page IV.L-24 of the DEIR states, "The south side of Romaine Street shall be widened by three feet from La Brea Avenue westerly for approximately 100 feet for the installation of a wider eastbound curb lane to facilitate the movement of eastbound right-turning traffic (i.e., functional right- turn lane)." This mitigation is also described on page 45 of the TIA. But no plan is provided for how this widening is to occur. If the widening is taken from the sidewalk, then pedestrians could be impacted. If the widening is taken from the adjoining property owners, then they will be impacted.

Response to Comment No. 15c-22

The recommended traffic mitigation for the Romaine Street and La Brea Avenue intersection is described in the Executive Summary and page 45 of the Traffic Impact Analysis and page IV.L-24 of the Draft EIR. Furthermore, conceptual drawing of the roadway widening of Romaine Street at La Brea Avenue was provided in Appendix H of the Traffic Impact Analysis. As shown in the drawing, the width of the existing sidewalk along the south side of Romaine Street west of La Brea Avenue would be reduced to 7 feet in width.

LADOT indicated in the May 2, 2008 approval letter, page 3 item E, that should any improvement not receive the required approval, the City may substitute an alternative measure of an equivalent effectiveness. The alternative mitigation measure for the intersection of Romaine Street and La Brea Avenue is the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM) for the project to reduce traffic generated by the project. The TDM program will be submitted for review and approval to the Planning Director and LADOT prior to requesting a building permit. The plan shall consider the highest and best uses of parking and shall encourage mass transit and will include an employee and resident transit subsidy and car pooling plan, including samples of written information to be provided to employees/residents and how the information will be disseminated. The plan may provide for subsidized public transit passes or other legal tender to employees/residents who commute by public transit to and from their work.

Comment No. 15c-23

26. The TlA does not identify impacts on public transit

Impacts on public transit are identified in Table IY.L-10 on page IV.L-23 of the DEIR, the source of which is given as Overland Traffic Consultants, November 2007. There is no corresponding document in the appendices to the DEIR. In particular, the TIA in Appendix H was prepared in August 2007. Without an analysis of the impact of the project on public transit, it is impossible to determine the justification for the impacts identified in the DEIR.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-112 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

The same table lists public transit trips generated by the proposed project as 19 during the AM peak hour and 45 in the PM peak hour. These are disappointingly small numbers for a project that is purported to be mixed-use.

Response to Comment No. 15c-23

The transit analysis is provided in Table IV.L-10 on page IV.l-23 of the Draft EIR as provided by Overland Traffic Consultants. No additional documentation is necessary as the information provided allows for the calculation of the potential transit impacts. Furthermore, as stated in the June 9, 2008 comment letter from Metro (Comment Letter No. 6), “the proposed project is not expected to result in any long-term impacts on transit.”

Comment No. 15c-24

27. The TIA does not identify impacts on bicycle circulation and parking

Neither the TIA nor the DEIR considers bicycle circulation or bicycle parking.

In particular, no bicycle parking is provided in the garage for residents or guests of apartments nor for employees or customers of the supermarket. The lack of secure bicycle parking severely limits the utility of bicycling for transportation purposes.

Response to Comment No. 15c-24

Given that there are no existing bicycle facilities adjacent to the Project site, the Proposed Project would not disrupt bicycle facilities. Secure bike parking would be provided in the ground floor of the parking garage adjacent to the handicap parking stalls (see Figure III-1 of the Draft EIR). Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant traffic impact on existing bicycle facilities.

Comment No. 15c-25

28. The TIA does not identify pedestrian impacts

Pedestrian impacts are only mentioned twice in the DEIR. On page 1-44 the DEIR states, "The developer shall install appropriate traffic signs around the site to ensure pedestrian and vehicle safety." And on page 1-44 the DEIR states, "Haul route scheduling shall be sequenced to minimize conflicts with pedestrians, school buses, and cars at the arrival and dismissal times of the school day. Haul route trucks shall not be routed past any school during periods when school is in session, especially when students are arriving or departing from the campus."

The TIA, however, does not analyze pedestrian impacts at all. Without an analysis of pedestrians, it is impossible to determine whether the proposed project has significant impact on pedestrians.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-113 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Response to Comment No. 15c-25

Improvements to the adjacent streetscape as part of the Proposed Project would enhance and encourage pedestrian activity in this area by improving the quality of the walking environment. Fifteen-foot sidewalks with new landscaping are proposed adjacent to the Project along La Brea Avenue and along Willoughby Avenue. The Proposed Project would also reduce the number of existing driveways on Willoughby Avenue from 4 driveways to 2 driveways. It should be noted that the widening of Romaine Street west of La Brea Avenue would reduce the sidewalk width to 7 feet, but still within the City street standards.

Comment No. 15c-26

29. Measures to promote Transportation Demand management (TDM), public transit, bicycling, and walking for project employees are ineffective

The 2004 Congestion Management Plan for Los Angles County, Appendix D, requires that a project include measures to promote Transportation Demand Management, public transit, bicycling and walking for project employees. The DEIR appears to addresses this requirement in Table IV.C-II on pg. Iy.e-30, where it claims that the project is consistent with smart land use and Intelligent Transportations Systems with this statement, "The Project locates new residential housing directly above retail and restaurant uses, as well as within walking distance of existing commercial uses. It also locates commercial uses in close proximity to existing homes as well as directly below new residential units. The Project site is also located along a transit corridor with opportunities for the project residents and patrons to use public transit rather than automobiles."

But this statement contradicts the estimate in Table 2 on pg. 11 of the TIA that 90% of trips generated by the project will be made by automobile. In fact, the TIA contains no discussion of the promotion of TDM, public transit, bicycling or walking for project employees. Without such a discussion, it can only be concluded that the proposed project includes no such promotion and that the use of public transit, bicycling and walking by project employees will be minimal.

Response to Comment No. 15c-26

The Traffic Impact Analysis did not seek additional trip reductions through a comprehensive TDM mitigation program, rather the Project would comply with the standard Citywide TDM programs and objectives contained in Transportation Demand Ordinance No. 168700. As part of the building permit process, the Project would be required to comply with the Ordinance No. 168700 by submitting a TDM plan for the commercial component of the Project to the Department of Transportation for review and approval as outlined in the LADOT Traffic Study Policies and Procedures.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-114 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment No. 15c-27

30. Inadequate analysis of driveway access and internal circulation

Driveway access and internal circulation are only mentioned twice in the DEIR. The first mention is mitigation L-4 on page IV.L-24 of the DEIR:. "The Project Applicant shall submit a parking and driveway plan to the Bureau of Engineering and the Department of Transportation for approval that shall provide code-required emergency access." The same mitigation is described on page 43 of the TIA: "It is however recommended that through moves not be allowed between the commercial driveway on Willoughby Avenue and Detroit Street." The TIA does not state how this recommendation would be achieved and the project site plan on page 5 of the TIA does not show it either. Also, the site plan shows the driveway opposite Detroit Street to be commercial/residential, not commercial only.

The second mention is mitigation L-5 on the same page, "The Project Applicant shall submit a parking and driveway plan to the Bureau of Engineering and the Department of Transportation for approval that shall provide code-required emergency access."

These statements are an insufficient analysis of driveway access and internal circulation. Without such an analysis, it is impossible to determine whether the project will produce any significant impacts to driveway access and internal circulation.

Response to Comment No. 15c-27

The Project Site Plan complies with the criteria set forth by LADOT for driveway location and internal circulation. In addition to LADOT’s review of the site plan as part of the environmental review, LADOT will require a second approval of the driveway locations and internal circulation during the building permit clearance process.

Comment No. 15c-28

31. Inadequate analysis of construction impacts

No construction plan is included in either the DEIR or the TIA. Construction impacts are discussed in the DEIR in two places.

Page I-44 of the DEIR states, "Haul route scheduling shall be sequenced to minimize conflicts with pedestrians, school buses, and cars at the arrival and dismissal times of the school day. Haul route trucks shall not be routed past any school during periods when school is in session, especially when students are arriving or departing from the campus."

Page IV.L-23 discusses construction traffic impacts and mitigations, but no source is given either for the impacts or for the mitigations. The TIA does not discuss construction impacts or mitigations.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-115 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Mitigation L-1 on page IV.L-23 of the DEIR appears to be a generic list and is not based on a construction plan. Without a an analysis of a construction plan, it is impossible to determine whether the project will produce any signific1nt traffic impacts.

Response to Comment No. 15c-28

As required by mitigation measure IV.L-1, the project would comply with the City of Los Angeles construction mitigation requirements to prepare a Work Area Control Plan prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project.

Comment No. 15c-29

32. Noise impacts not based on data from TIA

Appendix G of the DEIR consists of a table providing Off-Site Noise Levels. The source is stated as Overland Traffic Consultants, December 2004. This was before the NOP was distributed and before the TIA was performed in August 2007. So although the noise analysis should be based on the traffic forecasts in the TIA, it clearly was not.

Response to Comment No. 15c-29

The correct source of traffic volumes for the On-Site Roadway Noise Levels and Off-Site Roadway Noise Levels sheets in Appendix G of the Draft EIR is Overland Traffic Consultants, August 2007. The traffic volume numbers on these pages are correct and the source references on these pages have been corrected in this Final EIR.

Comment No. 15c-30

33. Project alternatives analysis not based on data from TIA

Page VI-3D of the DEIR gives the source for the estimated traffic in the Light Manufacturing Alternative as Overland Traffic Consultants, August 2007, but there is no discussion of project alternatives in the August 2007 TIA. This makes it impossible to determine the accuracy of the DEIR's alternatives analysis and identification of traffic impacts.

Response to Comment No. 15c-30

A complete discussion of the project alternative analyses is provided in Section VI, Alternatives to the Proposed Project of the Draft EIR. Although the traffic data for the alternatives was provided by the Project Traffic Engineer, the evaluation of alternatives is provided solely in the Draft EIR and does not need to be included in the Traffic Impact Analysis for the project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-116 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 16 Lucile Saunders, President, La Brea-Willoughby Coalition

Comment No. 16-1 The below listed support the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and findings and the Melrose Neighborhood Association's endorsement of an alternative development:

• RAS3, mixed use, 4-stories on La Brea to alley, then 3-stories on Willoughby, with 123- residential units and parking, or • Industrial Zoning Retained with "greener, cleaner" creative industries developed, 3-stories at Willoughby and up to 5-stories at Romaine as more compatible with our neighborhood size, scale and character, and have minimal negative impacts on traffic, parking, and services.

They oppose the currently proposed RAS4 La Brea Gateway project due to its significant, cumulative negative impacts of the planned density and height, and the residential and commercial traffic to our neighborhood.

Arad, Ittay Limon, Maria Elena Barba, Michael Lush, Billy Binkow, Peter Maloney, Walter Blakley, Johanna Mansinne, Peter Carreno, Anna Michelson, Melissa Choudhury, Mohammed Nuffer, Viola Curtis, Phil Okumyansky, Mikhail Dayzad, Navid Olansky, Seth Dennis-Watson, Ronald Orbach, Mary Diaz, Rio Ortiz, Ursula Goldsmith, Hilda Pascavage, Eric Ibenthal, Karen Raube, Maria Kaufman, David & Lisa Roberts, Ward Kuklowsky, Frederick Roth, Jeffery Lamb, Dana Rubeo, Chris Leard, Leland Saunders, Lucille Licate, Camille Simons, Justin Vaisman, Irina T: 323.939.2754 Walters, Terry F: 323 933.4575 Whipple, Laura E: [email protected] White, David W: www.labreacoalition.org

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-117 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Response to Comment No. 16-1

This letter acts as a cover letter for a number of local residents who support the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and findings, and the Melrose Neighborhood Association’s endorsement of a RAS3 or Industrial Zoned Retained alternative (see the responses to Letter No. 14). These people oppose the Proposed Project due to the organization’s opinions regarding potential impacts of the Proposed Project relative to planned density and height, as well as the residential and commercial traffic. The letter states that the planned density and height would be significant, although the Draft EIR concludes that the aesthetic (density and height) impacts of the Proposed Project would be less than significant and not cumulatively considerable. Potential traffic impacts would be less than significant with the mitigation measures recommended in Section IV.L. The opinions of the commenters will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-118 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 17

Ittay Arad

Comment No. 17-1

I support the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and findings and the Melrose Neighborhood Association's endorsement of industrial zoning retained as more compatible with our neighborhood size, scale and character, and have minimal negative impacts on traffic, parking, and services.

Response to Comment No. 17-1

This letter supports the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and findings, and the Melrose Neighborhood Association’s endorsement of an Industrial Zoning Retained alternative (see the responses to Letter No. 14). The letter does not provide any substantial evidence to support a challenge to the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. The opinions of the commenter will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-119 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 18

Michael Barba

Comment No. 18-1

I support the LaBrea Gateway Draft EIR study and findings and the Melrose Neighborhood Association's endorsement of RAS3 (low rise mixed use) as more compatible with our neighborhood size, scale and character which would have lower impacts on traffic, parking and services.

Response to Comment No. 18-1

This letter supports the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and findings, and the Melrose Neighborhood Association’s endorsement of a RAS3 alternative (see the responses to Letter No. 14). The letter does not provide any substantial evidence to support a challenge to the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. The opinions of the commenter will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-120 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 19

Peter A. Binkow and Johanna K. Blakley

Comment No. 19-1

We are writing in regards to the "La Brea Gateway" draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), which was recently completed. In it, the following two alternative developments were studied. As residents of the neighborhood, who have lived three houses south of the proposed development for more than six years, we believe that either of the two alternative developments are much more compatible with our neighborhood size, scale and character, and have significantly lower negative impacts on traffic, parking, and services:

• RAS3, mixed use, 4-stories on La Brea to alley, then 3-stories on Willoughby, with 123- residential units and the required on-site parking, or

• Industrial Zoning Retained with "greener, cleaner" creative industries developed, 3-stories at Willoughby and up to 5-stories at Romaine.

While we support the further development of our city, we believe that development must be done intelligently, in a way that does not destroy the existing residential neighborhoods.

Response to Comment No. 19-1

This letter supports the approval of either a RAS3 or Industrial Zoning Retained alternative. See the responses to Letter No. 14 for a discussion of these types of alternatives. The letter does not provide any substantial evidence to support a challenge to the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. The opinions of the commenters will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-121 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 20

Ana Marie Carreno

Comment No. 20-1

In support of the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and findings and the Melrose Neighborhood's Association's endorsement of RAS3 I feel is more compatible with our neighborhood size and will also help avoid the tremendous amount of new traffic a larger structure would create.

Over the years, the increased traffic along Willoughby has become frightening. I am afraid that any other building will lead to a tremendous amount of traffic in an area that is already suffering. We appreciate the fact that you are willing to compromise on this project and look forward to any future "area friendly" developments.

Response to Comment No. 20-1

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-122 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 21

Mohammed Choudhury

Comment No. 21-1

I support the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and the findings and the Melrose Neighborhood Assiciation's [sic] endorsement of the Industrial Zoning Retained as more compatible with our neighborhood size, scale, and character, and have minimal negative impacts on traffic, parking, and services.

Response to Comment No. 21-1

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-123 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 22

Phil Curtis

Comment No. 22-1

To Whom It May Concern: I am a resident of the Willoughby-Waring LaBrea area (I live at Sycamore and Waring) and I am writing to state my opposition to any additional residential development at Willoughby and LaBrea. I believe that we should be keeping jobs in this area and that the parcels in question should retain zoning related to greener and cleaner creative industries.

Response to Comment No. 22-1

This comment provides the commenter’s opposition to any residential development at the Project site and the desire to retain the industrial zoning of the site. The comment does not question the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. The opinions of the commenter will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project.

Comment No. 22-2

I suggest that you take a look at the Waring/LaBrea intersection to understand what kind of intolerable congestion additional residential development will cause on Willoughby and LaBrea. Since the two schools have been constructed along Waring, one right at LaBrea, it is almost impossible to move traffic along Waring, and it's really very dangerous for the school children there. Cars parked and double parked outside the school and the nearby community center create a daunting obstacle course for drivers trying to make their way along Waring toward the light at LaBrea.

Response to Comment No. 22-2

The intersection of La Brea Avenue and Waring Avenue was analyzed in the Traffic Impact Analysis. The analysis concluded that the Project would not significantly impact the intersection. This determination was confirmed by LADOT in the May 2, 2008 letter to the Planning Department. Furthermore, Project traffic will not be using Waring Avenue as a route to and from the site.

Comment No. 22-3

The proposed development at Willoughby represents yet another mindless effort to green light development without taking into consideration how these developments will affect traffic in the surrounding neighborhoods.

Response to Comment No. 22-3

The potential traffic and circulation-related impacts of the Proposed Project are evaluated in Section IV.L of the Draft EIR.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-124 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment No. 22-4

Keep the area in question zoned for industrial. Keep jobs in this neighborhood.

Response to Comment No. 22-4

This comment provides the commenter’s desire to retain the industrial zoning of the site and jobs in the neighborhood. The comment does not question the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. The opinions of the commenter will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-125 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 23

Navid Dayzad

Comment No. 23-1

I support the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study findings and the Melrose Neighborhood Assoc's endorsement of RAS 3. We must keep traffic and parking problems to a minimum.

Response to Comment No. 23-1

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-126 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 24

Ronald Dennis Watson

Comment No. 24-1

I am writing to applaud your work on behalf of my neighborhood in your efforts to keep my/our neighborhood alive and vibrant with the freedom we've enjoyed for many years of living in the Willoughby/Labrea [sic] area, of having a quiet and safe community neighborhood. As more and more condominiums go up in this area we are already feeling squeezed out by the influx of dwellers who are slowly changing the friendly neighborhood community that once was the Willoughby/Labrea [sic] hidden secret.

I know that development will occur of some sort, but I beg all of you on your respective councils and committee's to please continue to think about those of us who are long time residents/renters/owners of our community and to not allow we seniors to pushed out or to feel unsafe and or threatened by big development without much consideration given to us long time residents.

I also, oppose the La Brea Gateway proposal, RAS4, mixed use residence

Response to Comment No. 24-1

This letter provides the commenter’s opposition to the Proposed Project. The letter does not provide any substantial evidence to support a challenge to the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. The opinions of the commenter will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-127 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 25

Rio Diaz

Comment No. 25-1

I am supporting the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and findings and the Melrose Neighborhood Association's endorsement of RAS 3, mixed use, 4 stories on la [sic] Brea to alley, then 3 stories on Willoughby with 123 residential units and parking.

This will be more compatible with our neighborhood size, scale and character and therefore has less negative impact on traffic, .parking and services.

Response to Comment No. 25-1

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-128 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 26

Hilda P. Goldsmith

Comment No. 26-1

I live at 852 N Detroit St. and am severely impacted by your decision. I support the Melrose Neighborhood Assn. endorsement of the alternative developement [sic] and highly recommend that the city retain the light industrial zoning for the property involved.

The developers proposal for a 220 unit apartment complex with stores and or offices is not a suitable use for this site which is surrounded by the Elecric [sic] yard on the west, industrial property on the north, studio related industry to the east an a low height limit residential area to the south. It is an important part of our rapidly dwindling industrial complex in Hollywood which houses all the parts of the entertainment industry.

The developer's plans will not provide low cost housing and instead will force those people who live and work in our neighborhood to travel further to jobs in an industry that is being welcomed in Culver City, Santa Monica and indeed in New York.

Response to Comment No. 26-1

This letter supports the Melrose Neighborhood Association’s endorsement of an Industrial Zoning Retained alternative (see the responses to Letter No. 14). Although no residential units are proposed to be made available for low or very low income people, market rents for the apartment units would be more affordable than the monthly payment for a condominium, townhouse, or single family home in the market area. The issue of affordable housing units is one that will be considered by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project, but it is not one of the City thresholds of significance for determining environmental impacts pursuant to CEQA. The opinions of the commenter will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-129 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 27

Karen Ibenthal

Comment No. 27-1

I am writing to support the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and findings and the Melrose Neighborhood's Association's endorsement of RAS3 as more compatible with our neighborhood size and also to avoid the tremendous amount of new traffic a larger structure would create.

Response to Comment No. 27-1

This comment supports the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and findings, and the Melrose Neighborhood Association’s endorsement of a RAS3 alternative (see the responses to Letter No. 14). The comment does not provide any substantial evidence to support a challenge to the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. The opinions of the commenter will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project.

Comment No. 27-2

Having lived off Willoughby for nearly ten years, I have seen the increase in traffic along this corridor over the years, and the negative impact it has had on the neighborhood. Placing exits on this two lane road would create a horrific traffic situation on an already busy street.

Response to Comment No. 27-2

As discussed on page IV.L-18 of the Draft EIR, the traffic generated by the Proposed Project would cause a significant impact at two locations, including the intersection of La Brea Avenue and Willoughby Avenue. The impact to the two intersections would be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of mitigation measures L-2 and L-3.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-130 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 28

David Kaufman

Comment No. 28-1

I have lived in the Melrose Neighborhood for over 15 years now -- near the corner of Willoughby and Curson Aves. -- and can assure you that our neighborhood CANNOT withstand the type of project that the "La Brea Gateway" is planning. Seven stories??!! The traffic on Willoughby is already hideous, and the congestion at Willoughby and La Brea is already a nightmare.

I support an ALTERNATIVE development that would be more compatible with our neighborhood size, scale and character -- something that would have MUCH less impact on traffic, parking, services, and our way of life.

Response to Comment No. 28-1

This letter provides the commenter’s opinions and support for an alternative development that would be more compatible with the neighborhood size, scale and character. The letter does not provide any substantial evidence to support a challenge to the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. The opinions of the commenter will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project. See the Response to Comment No. 14-8 regarding the compatibility of the Proposed Project with the existing land uses in the vicinity of the Project site.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-131 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 29

Frederick V. Kuklowsky

Comment No. 29-1

I support the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and findings and the Melrose Neighborhood Association's endorsement of RAS3, mixed use, 4-stories on La Brea to alley, then 3-stories on Willoughby, with 123- residential units and parking as more compatible with our neighborhood size, scale and character, and have minimal negative impacts on traffic, parking, and services.

Response to Comment No. 29-1

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-132 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 30

Dana Lamb

Comment No. 30-1

I am writing to support the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and findings and the Melrose Neighborhood Association's endorsement of the "industrial Zoning Retained" alternative as more compatible with our neighborhood size, scale and character, and have minimal negative impacts on traffic, parking, and services.

Willloughby [sic] Ave is JAMMED with traffic as it is. We cannot sustain any more. The "Industrial Zoning Retained" alternative is our only hope hold to traffic to its already barely manageable level. Please consider it as the best option.

Response to Comment No. 30-1

This letter supports the Melrose Neighborhood Association’s endorsement of an Industrial Zoning Retained alternative (see the responses to Letter No. 14). The letter does not provide any substantial evidence to support a challenge to the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. The opinions of the commenter will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-133 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 31

Leland E. Leard

Comment No. 31-1

I oppose the current La Brea Gateway proposal RAS4.

I support the La Brea Gateway EIR findings and the Melrose Neighborhood Association's endorsement of proposal RAS3. The RAS3 proposal is more compatible with the existing neighborhood and offers a true benefit to current and future residents of the neighborhood. Once completed, the project will be an enhancement to the residential and commercial landscape in our community. Thanks for considering my opinion.

Response to Comment No. 31-1

This letter opposes the Proposed Project and supports the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and findings, and the Melrose Neighborhood Association’s endorsement of a RAS3 alternative (see the responses to Letter No. 14). The letter does not provide any substantial evidence to support a challenge to the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. The opinions of the commenter will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-134 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 32

Camille Licate

Comment No. 32-1

I am writing to support the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and findings and the Melrose Neighborhood Association's endorsement of the "Industrial Zoning Retained" alternative as more compatible with our neighborhood size, scale and character, and have minimal negative impacts on traffic, parking, and services.

Willloughby [sic] Ave is a high traffic zone with many people disregarding stop signs and speed bumps as it is now. We have children and pets on this street that are already in jeopardy now with all of the traffic. We cannot sustain any more. The "Industrial Zoning Retained" alternative is our only hope hold to traffic to its already barely manageable level. Please consider it as the best option.

Response to Comment No. 32-1

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-135 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 33

Maria Elena Limon

Comment No. 33-1

Response to Comment No. 33-1

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-136 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 34

Billy Lush

Comment No. 34-1

I support the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and findings and the Melrose Neighborhood Associatioin's [sic] endorsment [sic] of RAS3 as more compatible with our neighorhood [sic] size, scale and character. My overall concern has to do with traffic and congestion. I've noticed a huge difference in La Brea already due to the Hollywood Gateway and i [sic] purposely avoid La Brea north of Melrose whenever possible. I have also already noticed a difference in Willoughby by where i [sic] live on Detroit. Parking is already limited for me. I think the RAS3 is a good compromise.

Response to Comment No. 34-1

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-137 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 35

Angela Bradshaw

Comment No. 35-1

This letter is written in support of the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR Study and findings and the Melrose Neighborhood Association's endorsement of Alternative Development Industrial Zone Retained.

I am a homeowner, residing at 723 North June Street.

The adjacent area is a mainly single-family residential neighborhood which already has serious traffic and parking problems with congestion at La Brea Avenue. This proposal is far more compatible with the character and scale of our very pleasant residential neighborhood, and would serve the city far better. There is no advantage is adding to the stress caused by backed-up traffic and congestion, which would probably cause many to avoid this area completely, while diminishing the quality of life for residents of this neighborhood.

I urge you to accept this alternative plan

Response to Comment No. 35-1

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-138 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 36

Peter Gray Mansinne

Comment No. 36-1

I just wanted to take the time to write and let you know that I strongly support the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and findings and the Melrose Neighborhood Association's endorsement of RAS3 as more compatible with our neighborhood size, scale and character, and believe it will have minimal negative impacts on traffic, parking, and services. I like how it has been designed as mixed use, with only 4-stories on La Brea to the alley, then only 3-stories on Willoughby, with ony [sic] 123residential units and a reasonable number of parking spaces.

Response to Comment No. 36-1

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-139 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 37

Melissa M. Michelson

Comment No. 37-1

I moved to the Melrose area 8 years ago because of its quaint and historic residential architecture, its distance from traffic and large chain store developments and its unique neighborhood character that separates itself from other areas such as West Los Angeles or the San Fernando Valley.

The proposed Gateway project building is going to destroy the quiet of my neighborhood, destroy the unity of the architecture, limit the view of the hills and increase traffic. Therefore, I am opposed to rezoning the area for the La Brea Gateway Project to a RAS 4, which would bring in a 7-story building with 219 apartment units and over 500 garage parking spots.

I support keeping it a light-industrial zone, (one of around eight left in the Los Angeles area) but with a creative greener, cleaner use than it currently has. This would promote jobs and not aggravate the current horrendous traffic situation as much as adding further density to this unique neighborhood. Alternatively, keeping the area available for studio would also be beneficial as many residents in the area are media professionals.

At the very least, a RAS-3 zone would be a compromise that would allow for three stories on Willoughby and four on La Brea with 123 apartment units; nevertheless, a RAS-4 zone is outrageous and should not be approved.

Response to Comment No. 37-1

This letter provides the commenter’s opposition to the Proposed Project and support for an alternative. The opinions of the commenter will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project. See the Response to Comment No. 14-8 regarding the compatibility of the Proposed Project with the existing land uses in the vicinity of the Project site.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-140 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 38

Viola Nuffer

Comment No. 38-1

My neighborhood would be even better if the La Brea Willoughby block retained the industrial zoning alternative found in the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and findings and supported by the Melrose Neighborhood Association. Greener, creative industrial development is more compatible with our neighborhood size, scale and character, will provide more jobs, and have less negative impacts on traffic, parking, and services than the proposed La Brea Gateway project.

Response to Comment No. 38-1

This letter supports the Melrose Neighborhood Association’s endorsement of an Industrial Zoning Retained alternative (see the responses to Letter No. 14). The Light Manufacturing Alternative does not provide an environmentally superior alternative to the Proposed Project. The opinions of the commenter will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-141 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 39

Mikhail Okumyansky

Comment No. 39-1

I support the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and the findings and the Melrose Neighborhood Assiciation's [sic] endorsement of the RAS3 as more compatible with our neighborhood size, scale, and character, and have minimal negative impacts on traffic, parking, and services.

Response to Comment No. 39-1

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-142 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 40

Seth Olansky

Comment No. 40-1

I am writing today to share my support for the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and findings and the Melrose Neighborhood Association's endorsement of the RAS3, mixed-use development on La Brea Av. at Willoughby. As the Draft EIR study shows, the RAS3 development would be more in accord with the character, scale and size of the neighborhood and would not be an excessive burden on the surrounding community. It is important to keep in mind the impact of such a development on the neighbors who have spent much of their life in a quiet, mostly residential area, and to keep the proposed building in the spirit of the neighborhood.

Response to Comment No. 40-1

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-143 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 41

Mary Orbach

Comment No. 41-1 t support the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and the findings and the Melrose Neighborhood Assiciation's [sic] endorsement of the Industrial Zoning Retained as more compatible with our neighborhood size, scale, and character, and have minimal negative impacts on traffic, parking, and services.

Response to Comment No. 41-1

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-144 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 42

Ursula Ortiz

Comment No. 42-1

I support the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and findings and the Melrose Neighborhood Association's endorsement of Industrial zoning retained with greener, cleaner creative industries developed. and 3 stories at Willoughby side and up to 5 stories on Romaine.

This will be more to our neighborhood size and will not only have minimal impact on our traffic. but will also retain and create good jobs for our local industry.

Response to Comment No. 42-1

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-145 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 43

Eric Pascavage

Comment No. 43-1

I support the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and findings and the Melrose Neighborhood Association's endorsement of "INDUSTRIAL ZONING RETAINED". This decision will be more compatible with my neighborhood size, scale and character because of its minimal negative impacts on traffic, parking, and services.

Response to Comment No. 43-1

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-146 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 44

Maria Raube

Comment No. 44-1

I am supporting the La Brea Gateway Draft· EIR study and findings and the Melrose Neighborhood Association’s endorsement of RAS 3, mixed use, 4 stories on la [sic] Brea to alley, then 3 stories on Willoughby with 123 residential units and parking.

This will be more compatible with our neighborhood size, scale and character and therefore has less negative impact on traffic, parking and services.

Response to Comment No. 44-1

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-147 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 45

Ward Roberts

Comment No. 45-1

Response to Comment No. 45-1

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-148 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 46

Jeffery Roth

Comment No. 46-1

I oppose the current La Brea Gateway proposal, a RAS4, mixed use, 7 stories, 556 parking spaces on 3- stories parking, 2-stories commercial, and 2-stories with 219-residential units. This development would've [sic] a devasting [sic] impact in this small residential neighborhood.

I feel that a smaller project is needed in this neighborhood which would be more suitable in terms of scale, size, character, and have mimimal [sic] negative impact on our neighborhood. Therefore a RAS3 would be more suitable for this neighborhood where I have lived for 15yrs. I fully support the Melrose Neighborhood Assocation, [sic] and the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR report with a smaller development in this area.

Response to Comment No. 46-1

This letter provides the commenter’s opposition to the Proposed Project and support for the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and findings, and the Melrose Neighborhood Association’s endorsement of a RAS3 alternative (see the responses to Letter No. 14). The letter does not provide any substantial evidence to support a challenge to the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. The opinions of the commenter will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-149 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 47

Chris Rubeo

Comment No. 47-1

Response to Comment No. 47-1

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-150 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 48

Lucille Saunders

Comment No. 48-1

I support the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and findings and the Melrose Neighborhood Association's endorsement of an alternative development:

• RAS3, mixed use, 4-stories on La Brea to alley, then 3-stories on Willoughby, with 123- residential units and parking, or

• Industrial Zoning Retained with "greener, cleaner" creative industries developed, 3-stories at Willoughby and up to 5-stories at Romaine as more compatible with our neighborhood size, scale and character, and have minimal negative impacts on traffic, parking, and services.

I oppose the currently proposed RAS4 La Brea Gateway project due to its significant, cumulative negative impacts of the planned density and height, and the residential and commercial traffic to our neighborhood.

Response to Comment No. 48-1

This letter provides the commenter’s opposition to the Proposed Project and support for the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and findings as well as the Melrose Neighborhood Association’s endorsement of a RAS3 or Industrial Zoning Retained alternative (see the responses to Letter No. 14). The letter does not provide any substantial evidence to support a challenge to the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. The opinions of the commenter will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-151 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 49

Justin Simons

Comment No. 49-1

Hello and thank you for your time, I too support the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and findings and the Melrose Neighborhood Association's endorsement of RAS3. This is definitely more compatible with our neighborhood size, scale and character. With so much being written about these days about LA neighborhoods loosing any "Neighborhood feel" and desirability due to over development, or poorly thought out projects with no thought for the residents who actually live in the areas affected, the RAS3 will have minimal negative impact on traffic, parking and services, while joining a neighborhood allowed to remain a neighborhood.

Response to Comment No. 49-1

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-152 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 50

Irina Vaisman

Comment No. 50-1

Per the La Brea Gateway DEIR findings & the Melrose Neighborhood Association endorsement, I support industrial zoning retained with "greener, cleaner" creative industries development, 3 stories on Willoughby and up to 5 stories on Romaine. I do believe that this alternative will work better with the size and scale of our neighborhood, and will also be respectfully conscientious towards the difficult parking and traffic situation already caused by new developments in our area.

Response to Comment No. 50-1

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-153 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 51

Terry Walters

Comment No. 51-1

I would like to see the corner of Detroit 8t. And [sic] LaBrea Ave. zoned for industrial only. A large apartment complex would cause traffic and parking to be worse than it is already.

Response to Comment No. 51-1

This letter states the commenter’s desire to see the zoning of the Project site remain as industrial. The letter does not specifically provide any substantial evidence to support a challenge to the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. The opinions of the commenter will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-154 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 52

Laura Whipple

Comment No. 52-1

Willoughby is already backed up by mid-afternoon. It's getting harder and harder to drive across town, or N/S on La Brea. It's been a blessing for the neighborhood that the current buildings on this site are not in use. ANY development will negatively impact our· neighborhood! The roads just can't handle more traffic without ruining the life-style of the people already living here.

But I accept that development will happen, so I support the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and the Melrose Neighborhood Association's endorsement of: INDUSTRIAL ZONING RETAINED. Hopefully this site will once again be part of Hollywood's entertainment industry.

Response to Comment No. 52-1

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-155 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 53

David White

Comment No. 53-1

Response to Comment No. 53-1

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-156 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 54

Lucile Saunders, President, La Brea-Willoughby Coalition

Comment No. 54-1

See the Welcome to the Vibrant La Brea Willoughby Neighborhood brochure provided as Comment Letter No. 54 in Appendix A to this Final EIR.

Response to Comment No. 54-1

This brochure describes various aspects of the La Brea-Willoughby neighborhood. The Proposed Project and the industrial zoning for the block that includes the Project site is discussed on page 7 of the brochure. The brochure does not question the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-157 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 55

Bob Abrahams

Comment No. 55-1

I am writing regarding the DEIR for the La Brea Gateway Project at 915 N. La Brea Avenue (ENV-2005- 6164-EIR). I own a home and live there within a few blocks of the proposed project. I have read the report on your web site.

One of my concerns is the impact on Willoughby Ave. Willoughby is a through street and already carries a lot of traffic east and west in this area. This street already shows some congestion, partly due to the narrowness of the street in that area. While Willoughby may be designated as a "local street," most of its usage is not as a local street, and it has been handling overflow from Melrose Ave. and Santa Monica Blvd. long before development on both those streets. Saying that it is a "local street" doesn't make it so for drivers. This DEIR says that this proposal will add almost 3,000 vehicle trips per day to the area. Even if the project were to be downsized, there would still be many extra trips on Willoughby. Since the main parking entrances/exists are on the first two blocks of Willoughby Ave. west of La Brea Ave., almost all of those trips will be on those two blocks

Response to Comment No. 55-1

The Traffic Impact Analysis and Draft EIR acknowledge that Willoughby Avenue adjacent to the Project site is a heavily traveled (7,335 vehicles per day west of Formosa Avenue) local street with a large percentage of cut-through traffic (non-local). Table IV.L-8 on page IV.L-20 of the Draft EIR provides the reader with the existing and future traffic volume for Willoughby Avenue. The analysis concludes that no significant neighborhood impacts would occur as a result of traffic generated by the Project. It is, however, recommended that southbound through moves not be allowed between the commercial driveway on Willoughby Avenue and Detroit Street. This recommendation is applied to the Project through Mitigation Measure L-4.

Comment No. 55-2

While I understand the purpose in having the driveways not be on La Brea Ave. (that it would have an impact on La Brea Ave traffic, especially during rush hour when the curb lanes are for traffic), perhaps another solution would be for the developer to acquire properties on Formosa Ave and have one or both entrances be there. At least that would reduce the turning in and out impact on Willoughby Ave.

Response to Comment No. 55-2

A Formosa Avenue driveway would further spread the traffic load of the proposed project. However, the Project applicant does not have ownership or control of the adjacent property to extend site access to and from Formosa Avenue. This is not feasible for the Proposed Project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-158 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment No. 55-3

The report recommends widening Willoughby by five feet from La Brea to the driveway entrance opposite Detroit St. If the driveway entrances are to remain on Willoughby I suggest that this is nowhere near enough. While a similar widening was done on Romaine St. with the construction of the West Hollywood Gateway, note that Romaine St., is *not* a through street, and that all of the properties fronting on Romaine St. are commercial in nature.

More is needed here to facilitate traffic on Willoughby Ave. for this project. It must be widened enough to accommodate what is essentially an extra westbound lane from La Brea Ave. all the way to the westernmost driveway of the project. This will lead traffic in from La Brea Ave. to the parking. In addition the street needs to be widened an additional amount to provide left turn lanes for eastbound traffic at *both* driveway entrances and at La Brea Ave. With that, eastbound through traffic and right hand turns onto southbound La Brea should flow easier.

Response to Comment No. 55-3

Mitigation measure L-2 recommended that the north side of Willoughby Avenue be widened by five feet from west of La Brea Avenue to the proposed commercial driveway opposite Detroit Street (approximately 300 feet). The street widening would allow for the installation of a wider eastbound traffic lane to facilitate the movement of eastbound right-turns on Willoughby Avenue at its intersection with La Brea Avenue. LADOT has reviewed the proposed street widening and as concurred that the increased street width would mitigate the impact to the Willoughby Avenue and La Brea Avenue intersection to a less than significant level. No additional lanes on Willoughby Avenue are proposed for access to the site. The Project site plan has been designed to provide access from three streets: Willoughby Avenue, La Brea Avenue and Romaine Street. Residents, employees and customers of the mixed-use project will have several routes to choose when arriving or leaving the site during peak traffic hours.

Comment No. 55-4

While some of this width can be created by eliminating parking along Willoughby Ave. on those two blocks, the south side parking is needed for residents of the area (which is why District #53 permit holder are exempt from the one-hour parking) especially those that front on Willoughby itself. With this in mind, if "widening" Willoughby includes eliminating street parking, some provision must be made to provide free parking to residents and visitors in that area within the new development. This parking must be on the ground floor to be as convenient as possible to pedestrians leaving the structure for the residents across the street.

Response to Comment No. 55-4

The recommended street improvements to Willoughby Avenue would not require the removal of any existing on-street parking along the south side of Willoughby Avenue currently used by residents.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-159 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment No. 55-5

Other solutions are possible as well, but in any case, it's important that the developers do everything possible, not just the minimum required, to minimize the traffic, parking and other impacts, especially on the directly adjacent residential area. When the West Hollywood Gateway center was built, Los Angeles put in a one-way traffic restriction eliminating northbound traffic from Willoughby Ave. onto Formosa Ave. This was to minimize traffic cutting from Willoughby and the residential area to the West Hollywood retail project. Los Angeles must do as much and *more* to protect this section of Los Angeles from this large development in Los Angeles itself and approved by Los Angeles. Development -- especially with the addition of housing units of any kind -- may be necessary. But the developers of these projects must be required to minimize their impacts on surround areas, especially residential neighborhoods.

Response to Comment No. 55-5

This comment states the commenter’s opinions regarding traffic impacts in the vicinity of the Project site. The comment does not question the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. The opinions of the commenter will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project.

Comment No. 55-6

[By the way, even with mitigations, the increased traffic on Willoughby will also result in increased traffic on Waring Ave., one block to the south, especially since it has a traffic signal at La Brea Ave. The City of Los Angeles, really needs to repave Waring Ave. street in the blocks west of La Brea Ave. This is needed whether this development proceeds or not.]

Response to Comment No. 55-6

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-160 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 56

Peter Binkow

Comment No. 56-1

Please see the attached letter which I am also sending via US Mail.

We are writing in regards to the "La Brea Gateway" draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), which was recently completed. In it. the following two alternative developments were studied. As residents of the neighborhood, who have lived three houses south of the proposed development for more than six years, we believe that either of the two alternative developments are much more compatible with our neighborhood size, scale and character, and have significantly lower negative impacts on traffic, parking, and services:

• RAS3. mixed use, 4-stories on La Brea to alley, then 3-stories on Willoughby, with 123- residential units and the required on-site parking. or

• Industrial Zoning Retained with "greener, cleaner" creative industries developed, 3-stories at Willoughby and up to 5-stories at Romaine.

While we support the further development of our city, we believe that development must be done intelligently, in a way that does not destroy the existing residential neighborhoods.

Response to Comment No. 56-1

The letter attached to this message is a duplicate of Comment Letter No. 19 in which the commenter's support the approval of either a RAS3 or Industrial Zoning Retained alternative. See the responses to Letter No. 14 for a discussion of these types of alternatives. The letter does not provide any substantial evidence to support a challenge to the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. The opinions of the commenters will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-161 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 57

Gail and Charles Boswell

Comment No. 57-1

Our names are Gail and Charles Boswell, and we are the owners of Dos Gallos, Inc, a furniture company. We are located at 924 North Formosa Avenue, which is directly behind and abuts 915 North La Brea Avenue (La Brea Gateway). Our concerns regarding the construction are twofold; one is the amount of noise and dust which will occur during construction of the proposed complex, and make it impossible for us to conduct business. We have 12 large windows and two large rolling doors facing the project. Dust will enter our building and cover our fine furniture and equipment, and also, we and our clients will he breathing all these dust particles. The noise, as we experienced last year during a soil test for this project, will make it impossible to conduct business over the phone and for clients to do business in person here.

Response to Comment No. 57-1

The Draft EIR states that noise and fugitive dust would be generated during the construction-related phases of development. Typical outdoor construction noise levels of 77 to 86 dBA Leq and 72 to 81 dBA CNEL (with mufflers) at a distance of 50 feet from the source are identified on page IV.I-10 of the Draft EIR. Noise levels associated with demolition and construction activities are regulated by Section 41.40 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code. Exterior demolition and construction activities that generate noise are prohibited between the hours of 9:00 PM and 7:00 AM Monday through Friday, and between 6:00 PM and 8:00 AM on Saturday. Demolition and construction are prohibited on Sundays and all federal holidays. Any development in the vicinity would be subject to the restrictions and several mitigation measures have been identified in the Draft EIR to further restrict the hours of construction activity and reduce the levels of noise generated by the activity. However, a temporary increase in daytime noise would occur at the commenter’s place of business. The City’s interior noise standards for homes and places of business are based upon closed doors and windows. The City does not guarantee quiet noise environments in industrial areas or home and commercial businesses with open doors and windows.

As discussed on page IV.C-20 of the Draft EIR, the fugitive dust would be generated during the construction phases of development. The localized concentrations of this dust would not, however, exceed the thresholds of significance recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Therefore, this impact is determined in the Draft EIR to be less than significant.

Comment No. 57-2

Second, our concern is the amount of traffic that will adversely affect our business here at Dos Gallos, and the rest of this neighborhood. As it is now with the new Target on La Brea Avenue and Santa Monica, the traffic congestion has increased tremendously. Getting in and out of our place of business has become increasingly difficult, and we fear that it will he even worse and that we will lose business because of the amount of traffic this new proposed project will produce.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-162 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Response to Comment No. 57-2

Very little Project traffic is projected to travel Formosa Avenue between Willoughby Avenue and Romaine Street, resulting in a negligible impact on access to and from 924 N. Formosa Avenue. Formosa Avenue is a north/south street located to the west of the site. The Project has been designed to use the private north-south drive and will not use Formosa Avenue as an alternative route. Furthermore, traffic leaving the Project site cannot make a right turn from Willoughby Avenue onto Formosa Avenue because of turn restrictions and physical changes to the intersection of Formosa Avenue and Willoughby Avenue.

Comment No. 57-3

Our business will suffer greatly because of this and we fear that something that has taken us 15 years to establish, will be destroyed if this project is allowed to continue. The way traffic is now I cannot imagine how impossible this area will be if this project is approved.

Response to Comment No. 57-3

The comment presents the opinion of the commenter. The comment does not question the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. The opinions of the commenters will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project. Economic impacts, in general, are not appropriate areas for CEQA impact analysis. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines section 15131(a) provides “Economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment.”.

Comment No. 57-4

I also understand that there is a civil law protecting me from undue high noise levels or for that matter anything that is highly disruptive to any of my senses.

Response to Comment No. 57-4

See the Response to Comment No. 57-1 for a discussion of the noise regulations that apply to the proposed construction activities.

Comment No. 57-5

We will be out if town during the meeting, but I want to let you know that I feel very strongly about this project I will do everything I can legally, to protect something I have spent the last 15 years creating; our business.

Response to Comment No. 57-5

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-163 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 58

Angela Bradshaw

Comment No. 58-1

This letter is written in support of the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR Study and findings and the Melrose Neighborhood Association's endorsement of Alternative Development Industrial Zone Retained.

I urge you to accept this alternative plan.

Response to Comment No. 58-1

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-164 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 59

Pete Bleyer

Comment No. 59-1

II [sic] have cc'd this so you each know whom I am contacting with the exact same message.

I recently received our local Melrose Neighborhood Association newsletter, which updated me of the latest plans being considered for development. at the corner of LaBrea + Willoughby. Since 1981, I am a property owner of a small duplex on Sierra Bonita Avenue. I also grew up in the neighborhood in a duplex my Mom still owns and graduated Fairfax High School. I am also a voter and somebody whose opinion I would like to think that my elected officials care about.

Please reconsider NOT approving this monster sized project to go in at the former KCOP TV lot. The project is so out of scale for our neighborhood it is hard to image it got even this far. Even with the KCOP lot empty and abandoned as it is now, traffic at that corner each beginning and end of the day is solid gridlock, where vehicles may move only a few car lengths between several signal changes RIGHT NOW. The traffic from the Target Shopping Center at S.M. Blvd. + LaBrea all alone, has cemented this as a permanent traffic pattern of our neighborhood, not just a temporary condition. Try to drive that corner on a Friday night after work during rush hour and I promise that you are more than likely to move barely a block in 10-15 minutes!!!!

Then, per RAS4, to add 7 residential units + 2 stories of commercial + parking for 556 cars that will at some point be moving onto Willoughby? It is a narrow street with (in each direction) only a single lane of traffic + one for parking. Could anybody possibly come up with a STUPIDER idea that could ruin our nice, but already congested, neighborhood any faster? KCOP was my client for whom I did numerous projects over a 15 year period. They were once a busy TV Station and Studio, yet still a "quiet good neighbor" whose commerical [sic] enterprise had minimal impact on our surrounding residential neighborhood.

I see alternative proposals like RAS3 and others that are much more scaled back developments. Yes, I know, all commercial real estate today is measured in terms of "greatest use". But in reality, that is nothing more than a greedy term with only an eye on the highest ROI and complete disregard for any environmental impact. Any E. I. study will prove how the last thing our neighborhood needs is 556 cars, which at one time or other during the day, will exit onto Willoughby. Changing the exit to LaBrea instead, would only slightly improve things, but still be a huge traffic burden to those of us living here.

When approving ANYTHING for that site, please do the right thing. Ignore the big money developer lobbyists and keep responsible to your local citizens instead. This is yet another major development that we neither want or need, but assuredly will again lower the peace, quiet and quality of life in our neighborhood.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-165 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Response to Comment No. 59-1

This letter states the commenter’s opinions and opposition to the Proposed Project. The letter does not provide any substantial evidence to support a challenge to the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. The opinions of the commenter will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project. See the Responses to Comment Nos. 14-1 through 14-59 regarding the issues raised by the Melrose Neighborhood Association.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-166 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 60

Patrice Dally

Comment No. 60-1

This brief letter is in regards to the proposed "La Brea Gateway" project, slated for development at 915 N. La Brea Avenue, and the ElP [sic] that the city of Los Angeles is now calling for on said project.

I live directly across the street from the proposed development, at 858 N. Formosa Avenue, and my home, my property, and my life will be grossly negatively affected by the development as it is now conceived.

I have lived at this south-east comer of Willoughby and Formosa Avenues for 14 years, and I have watched the steady erosion of livability in my neighborhood. With the building of the Gateway East in the city of West Hollywood, on the southwest comer of La Brea and Santa Monica, the adjacent area has seen a doubling of traffic and all the problems attendant therein on the surface streets to the southwest of the development. Though traffic mitigation was promised, and some small changes made, these have not been able to decrease the volume of traffic that has resulted, as commuters in and passing through the area seek to avoid the F-class intersection of La Brea and Santa Monica. Living in my home, at this location, has become increasingly less pleasurable, as the noise, pollution and congestion have grown.

And I am certain that the "La Brea Gateway" project will take this bad situation to the breaking point.

Simply put, the development as proposed is WHOLLY INAPPROPRIATE for this small residential street, Willoughby, and its scope is absolutely GARGANTUAN in respect to the surrounding neighborhood. We who live in the neighborhood, and we who have already been negatively affected by West Hollywood's east-end projects, are reeling at the thought of this new proposal.

It is greedy and reckless beyond words for the developer to request a RAS-4 zone change and ask that the height limits of the current zoning be kept in tact, allowing for a monstrously oversized, noisy, congestion-producing, high-density project to abut single-family dwellings, and to put a large commercial enterprise that will attract even more traffic directly across the street from a community of single-family homes. The impact will be a nightmare for those residents who are within not only the 500 ft radius of the development but for the entire length of Willoughby, as its east-west status increasingly demands that it bear the brunt of traffic that can barely move east-west on major arteries (Melrose and Santa Monica). The attendant traffic, noise, pollution and danger to our residential streets, where there are three schools and thousands of residents, will result in the major deterioration of our neighborhood.

IT WILL NOT ENHANCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUT WILL BE TO ITS DETRIMENT!!!!! !

I feel some relief that the city is at least going forward with an EIP [sic] on this project, as per the wishes of the adjacent community, and I pray that this report will look seriously at the impact this zone change will have not only on the immediate area to the south, but to the overall area of Hollywood. In my opinion, it is a mistake to take this tract out of the pool of land available for industrial use. In my opinion,

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-167 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

giving this property away as a windfall to the shortsighted goals of the developer borders on the criminal. What it will do my [sic] home, and my life specifically is incalculable. The plan to have the traffic that this project will generate dumped onto Willoughby Avenue, right at my doorstep, will be a traffic nightmare for the local neighborhood.

I beseech the EIP [sic] personnel to look carefully at this project and realistically report the full impact of this proposed project on my neighborhood.

Response to Comment No. 60-1

This letter states the commenter’s opinions and opposition to the Proposed Project. The potential construction-related and operational impacts of the Proposed Project have been evaluated in the Draft EIR. The opinions of the commenter will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-168 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 61

Leland E. Leard

Comment No. 61-1

Please see the attached document.

I oppose the current La Brea Gateway proposal RAS4.

Response to Comment No. 61-1

The letter attached to this message is a duplicate of Comment Letter No. 31 in which the commenter opposes the Proposed Project and supports the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and findings, and the Melrose Neighborhood Association’s endorsement of a RAS3 alternative. The letter does not question the specific content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. The opinions of the commenter will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-169 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 62

Paul Lerner

Comment No. 62-1

I am writing to comment on the DEIR for the La Brea Gateway Project at 915 N. La Brea Avenue (ENV2005-6164-EIR). I am a homeowner and resident in the adjoining neighborhood.

According to the DEIR, "The Proposed Project could be expected to generate a net increase of 2,956 vehicle trips per weekday with 106 morning peak hour trips and 279 afternoon peak hour trips added to the local roadway network. Based on the City's thresholds of significance, the Project traffic would significantly impact the intersections of La Brea Avenue and Romaine Street and (2) La Brea Avenue and Willoughby Avenue."

Willoughby Avenue is a very narrow, old, congested, and primarily residential street that cannot adequately handle the traffic it currently bears. It would be inappropriate to burden this small road by constructing on it the primary parking entrances and exits for a large new housing-retail development which would bring thousands of additional vehicles each day, and which would significantly impact the intersection of Willoughby Avenue and La Brea Avenue.

Such a development would bring traffic in this neighborhood to a standstill at many times during the day. The traffic congestion would harm neighborhood commerce, increase pollution, and reduce the quality of life in our community.

If you have not already visited the site, I encourage you to do so, especially during afternoon rush hour time. Please see for yourselves whether Willoughby Avenue could realistically take this additional traffic.

Response to Comment No. 62-1

Comment No. 62-2

The La Brea Gateway Project should get approvals only if it has no parking entrances or exits on Willoughby Avenue. All cars should enter and exit on La Brea Avenue, which is a major thoroughfare, and via an alley to Romaine Street, which is strictly commercial between La Brea Avenue and Formosa Avenue.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-170 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Response to Comment No. 62-2

When given a choice, traffic engineers recommend that vehicular access be located on streets with the lowest traffic volume. It is also general practice by traffic engineers and municipalities to locate access as far as practical from intersections to minimize vehicular conflicts. Therefore, on corner properties such as the Project site, these practices require that access to the site be from Willoughby Avenue. To minimize the traffic impact, however, several access routes from La Brea Avenue and from Romaine Street have been provided to spread the Project traffic flow and to provide several route choices during peak traffic hours.

Comment No. 62-3

I am not opposed to a development on this site, but it should be smart and sensible development that does not harm the residential neighborhood next to it. As Los Angeles City Council President Eric Garcetti has stated, Los Angeles needs smart growth, not any growth at any cost.

Response to Comment No. 62-3

This comment states the commenter’s opinions regarding the Proposed Project. The comment does not question the specific content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. The opinions of the commenter will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-171 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 63

Jill Manning, Ed.D.

Comment No. 63-1

I am writing in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the La Brea Gateway Project, case number ENV-2005-6164-EAF, submitted to your office. As a homeowner who lives directly across the street from the project I have many concerns, specifically the developers request for a zone change MR-1 to RAS4-1. I would prefer that the project site remains under it current zoning and support Alternative A: No Project Alternative as written in the DEIR.

Response to Comment No. 63-1

Comment No. 63-2

My first concern is regarding traffic on Willoughby Avenue and am curious as to why the developer has not addressed traffic issues that currently exist and will only worsen is the project goes forward at the intersection of Willoughby and Formosa Avenues. In Table I-I there are no proposed mitigation measures to deal with traffic at this intersection (page 1-49). The Overland Traffic Consultants Inc. report in the DEIR states that this intersection "operates at LOS A during both the AM and PM peak hours" but this is untrue. The table on page IV L-3 "Trip Generation Rates for the La Brea Gateway Project" indicates that the current volume of a.m. peak traffic at the Willoughby/Formosa intersection is V/C 0.293 giving it a LOS rating of A or excellent. On page IV L-19 the developer notes that the increased traffic at this intersection in the a.m. peak hours will be V/C 0.322. What developer fails to mention the cumulative effect of the project on traffic is V/C 0.615 making the intersection a LOS B instead of LOS A. By reporting the above statistics separately, they underestimate the impact of traffic on Willoughby Avenue and the dramatic effect that increased traffic in this area will have on quality of life for current residents of the neighborhood. Table IV.L-8 is also of great concern to me because it purports to analyze neighborhood traffic intrusion yet fails to report statistics for Willoughby Avenue between Formosa Avenue and La Brea Avenue. Surely this oversight was not accidental as this section of Willoughby Avenue will bear the brunt of all increased traffic since it runs along the entire southern border of the proposed project. Finally, on page IV L-25, the developer indicates that will be less traffic at the La Brea/Willoughby intersection with their proposed project mitigation L-2 which will create a dedicated right hand turn lane on Willoughby Avenue, but right hand turns are not what backs up traffic at this intersection, left hand turns do, so how does the developer propose to solve this problem? I would like to see the Department of City Planning require the developer to redo the traffic surveys using a different consultant other than Overland Traffic Consultants because it seems to me that they are less than forthcoming in their reporting and, at worst, biased in favor of the developer.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-172 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Response to Comment No. 63-2

As discussed in the Traffic Impact Analysis and on pages IV.L-11 through IV.L-18 of the Draft EIR, a cumulative traffic impact analysis is provided. Table IV.L-6 of the Draft EIR lists the related projects and associated traffic generation that was considered in the cumulative impact analysis. The related project list consists of all potential projects located within the study area, and was obtained from LADOT, City Planning, and the City of West Hollywood. The locations of the related projects are depicted in Figure II- 10 of the Draft EIR. In addition, the cumulative impact analysis includes an ambient growth factor of one percent per year in order to account for any smaller or unknown related projects in the vicinity of the Project site.

City of Los Angeles Thresholds: LOS Final V/C Value Increase in V/C Value C ≥ 0.70 - 0.79 +0.04 D 0.080 – 0.89 +0.02 E – F ≥ 0.90 +0.01 or more

For the City of West Hollywood, the threshold is a 2% increase in the V/C value for intersection operating at LOS E or F.

The commenter disagrees with the significance thresholds adopted by the Cities of Los Angles and West Hollywood and suggests a zero growth policy. Table IV.L-7 of the Draft EIR correctly shows the impact as the incremental traffic from related projects and ambient growth and the impact from just project traffic, as directed by the LADOT Traffic Study Policies and Procedures.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-173 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

The commenter incorrectly adds the volume-to-capacity ratios (0.293 existing a.m. peak hour and the future a.m. with project condition of 0.322) and reports the final v/c ratio to be 0.615. The v/c ratios reported in the Traffic Study are the final ratios for each scenario. The difference in the ratios is the impact, for example the total cumulative impact during the a.m. peak hour at Willoughby Avenue and Formosa Avenue is + 0.029 (0.322 – 0.293).

The neighborhood impact analysis provided in Table IV.L-8 correct analyzes the traffic impact on Willoughby Avenue west of Formosa Avenue where both sides of the street are zoned for residential uses.

Comment No. 63-3

The next area of concern is the shade and shadow portion of the report. The shadows projected were from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. for the winter solstice and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. for the summer solstice. The DEIR does not take into account the significant amount of shade that already exists on Willoughby Avenue from sunrise until 9:00 a.m. A 63 foot structure will leave all buildings on the south side of Willoughby Avenue in shade from sunrise and create problems for plant life as well as residents who live on the southern side of Willoughby Avenue. The DEIR states that "no shading impacts would occur" and this is untrue. There will be no shade for residents in the p.m. but significant shade in the a.m. and I ask that your department require the developer to do another shade study and revise their drawings in figures IV B-1 - IV B-6 starting on page IV B-7 of the DEIR.

Response to Comment No. 63-3

As stated on page IV.B-5 of the Draft EIR, according to the L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, a project- related shading impact would normally be considered significant if shadow-sensitive uses would be shaded by project-related structures for more than three hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time (between late October and early April), or for more that four hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time (between early April and late October). The sun would be to the south during these hours of the day and any shading from the proposed buildings would be to the north. No shading impacts would occur to the south of the Project site.

Comment No. 63-4

In earlier meetings with the developer, there was much talk about traffic mitigation in order to gamer community support for the proposed project but all of the community suggestions seemed to have been ignored. I would ask that the department of planning require the developer to clearly state in the final EIR what kinds of traffic mitigation will be used and that neighborhood input is sought in determining specific ways to mitigate traffic.

Response to Comment No. 63-4

The mitigation measures required to reduce the traffic and circulation impacts of the Proposed Project are identified on pages IV.L-23 and IV.L-24 of the Draft EIR. These measures have been reviewed and approved by LADOT.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-174 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment No. 63-5

My third area of concern is the impact the project will have on Melrose Elementary School. The DEIR discusses the Estimated Student Generation from the Proposed Project of 42 students for Melrose Elementary yet on page VII-22 they indicate that the project will add 133 students to Melrose Elementary. Which is it? On page IV K-15 it is noted that there will be a cumulative impact of 1,863 elementary school students and "all three schools (elementary, middle and senior high) do not have the capacity to accommodate the cumulative student generations, new or expanded schools may be needed, which would result in a potentially significant cumulative impact." (p. IV. K-21). Who will pay for these new schools? The developer should also be aware that in the 2009 - 2010 school year, Melrose Elementary School will become a Math/Science/Technology Magnet School and will no longer be considered a neighborhood school. Local residents will have to apply via LAUSD's Choices Program to gain admittance to the school, which could have a significant impact on both Laurel Elementary and Vine Street Elementary Schools as they are the closest LAUSD schools that would service this community. It would be in the developer's best interest to initiate discussions with these two schools as well as LAUSD community liaisons in Local District 4 to ensure that they are able to handle the project student enrollment. I spoke with school personnel about this project on Friday, June 27, 2008 and they indicated to me that no one from the developer's office has contacted them regarding the project even though the developer states in the DEIR that they will work with the school to come up with mitigation solutions to increased traffic both during and after construction.

Response to Comment No. 63-5

As stated on pages IV.K-13 and IV.K-14 of the Draft EIR, the Proposed Project is expected to generate a net increase of approximately 42 elementary school students. Section VI of the Draft EIR evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the theoretical development of the remaining parcels on the block as mixed-use projects with subterranean and above grade parking, ground level retail, and residential units constructed on a podium deck above the retail and parking elements, similar to the Proposed Project. This is referred to as the Add Area analysis. The 133 elementary school students would be generated by this theoretical Add Area development, which is not proposed at this time.

See Response to Comment No. 7-2 for a discussion of cumulative school impacts. Any new schools or expansion of existing schools needed to accommodate increased student population growth in the LAUSD would be paid for by a combination of State funds, LAUSD school construction bonds, and standard developer fees such as those that would be collected from the developer of the Proposed Project.

If or when Melrose Elementary School becomes a Math/Science/Technology Magnet School, it is understood that the LAUSD would alter the attendance boundaries for other schools to accommodate existing and anticipated school enrollment. Some students at Melrose Elementary School would go elsewhere, some students at other existing schools would go to Melrose, and new students would go to either school.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-175 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Mitigation measure K.3-1 requires the developer and contractor to maintain ongoing contact with administrators of Melrose Elementary School, Bancroft Middle School, and Fairfax High School when demolition, grading, and construction begin.

Comment No. 63-6

Finally, this project will have a major environmental impact on our neighborhood. Page VI-55 of the DEIR states it best in regard to the environmentally superior alternative, "The No Build/No Project Alternative would result in the least impacts on the existing environment." Those of us who live in this neighborhood are here for the long term to raise our families and live out our lives and what happens here matter to us. Given the number of inconsistencies in the DEIR, it is difficult for me to support the developer of the La Brea Gateway Project. If they can't even be bothered to check their own tables and statistics for accuracy, how can our neighborhood trust them to take our concerns seriously?

Response to Comment No. 63-6

This comment states the commenter’s opinions regarding the Proposed Project. The commenter has not identified any inconsistencies in the Draft EIR (the estimates of Project and Add Area student generation are consistent as discussed in the Response to Comment No. 63-5).

Comment No. 63-7

I hope that the Department of City Planning will give my comments serious consideration when they make a recommendation regarding the La Brea Gateway Project.

Response to Comment No. 63-7

The comments by the commenter and the associated responses will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-176 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 64

J. H. McQuiston

Comment No. 64-1

I am an owner of property in the same subarea as the property at issue. I am severely-restricted by the constraints placed upon my property, and so are the other owners of the 253 similarly-zoned parcels.

We agreed to these constraints with the promise that all owners would be treated equally and that all must abide by the constraints.

The California Supreme Court has pronounced, in two overlapping and global cases (Broadway, Laguna Assn v Board of Permit Appeals, 66 C 2d 767 (1967) and Topanga Assn for a Scenic Community v County of Los Angeles, 11 C3d 506 (1974, en banc)) that Law does not permit single-property variation from area constraints in situations like this case. Spot zoning would be unconstitutional special privilege.

There is no justification at hand which requires relief from the existing zoning, according to the Court precedents above.

If the City wishes to discriminate between properties in this subarea, which the City created because the properties share similar character and purpose, then the properties not entitled to maximum benefit, like the enormous windfall-profit which the subject property requests, are entitled to compensation for deprivation.

Response to Comment No. 64-1

The commenter states that the proposed rezoning of the property underlying the Project site would constitute spot zoning and would confer an unconstitutional privilege on the project applicant. The two cases cited by the commenter, however, do not address rezoning but rather the issue of variances from zoning requirements.

Rezoning of this property would not amount to unlawful spot zoning. “Spot zoning” is a zoning or rezoning that creates an ‘island,’ a small parcel in the middle of a larger area that is zoned for other uses. See Wilkins v. City of San Bernardino, 29 Cal.2d 332, 340, 342 (1946). The property is not a small parcel, occupying six separate parcels, totaling 99,150 square feet (2.27 acres) of land. Nor is the property located in the middle of a larger area that is zoned for other uses. The property is located in a highly urbanized area, and it is abutted by a mix of uses, including office buildings, commercial and light industrial uses, and residential uses. As analyzed in the Draft EIR (see, e.g., Section V.H (land use)), rezoning of the property is consistent with the surrounding uses, and as such, would not confer an unconstitutional privilege on the project applicant.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-177 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment No. 64-2

Moreover, the Planning Department and the CRA are concerned because the available Industrial Area in the City is being converted to other uses by speculators.

With Hollywood a major tourist attraction, generating substantial City income, it is imperative to keep the "Hollywood" in Hollywood. We must preserve the industrial base in Hollywood, which now consists of only these few properties. If the subject property is converted, with others almost 25 percent of the entire Hollywood film, record, video, and support industrial land will be lost.

Thus it is in the City's best interest, as well as for the property owners' compact preservation, to prevent the conversion of property restricted solely for manufacturing in the Hollywood MR Zone.

Response to Comment No. 64-2

This comment states the commenter’s opinion that the Project site should be preserved for the industrial base. The comment does not provide any substantial evidence to support a challenge to the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. The opinions of the commenter will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-178 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 65

Melissa Michelson

Comment No. 65-1

The proposed Gateway project building is going to destroy the quiet of my neighborhood, destroy the unity of the architecture, limit the view of the hills and increase traffic. Therefore, I am opposed to rezoning the area for the La Brea Gateway Project to a RAS 4, which would bring in a 7-story building with 219 apartment units and over 500 garage parking spots.

Response to Comment No. 65-1

This letter is a duplicate of Comment Letter No. 37 in which the commenter’s opposition to the Proposed Project and support for an alternative is discussed. The letter does not provide any substantial evidence to support a challenge to the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. The opinions of the commenter will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-179 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 66

Viola Nuffer

Comment No. 66-1

Response to Comment No. 66-1

This letter is a duplicate of Comment Letter No. 38, which supports the Melrose Neighborhood Association’s endorsement of an Industrial Zoning Retained alternative. The letter does not provide any substantial evidence to support a challenge to the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. The opinions of the commenter will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-180 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 67

Bonnie Pastor

Comment No. 67-1

I support the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and findings and the Melrose Neighborhood Association's endorsement of either a RAS3 or retaining the industrial zoning as more compatible with our neighborhood size, scale and character.

I am particularly concerned about the impact on traffic, parking and services in my neighborhood.

Response to Comment No. 67-1

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-181 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 68

Josh Rohmer

Comment No. 68-1

As a resident at 632 ½ N. Genesee Avenue within the Hollywood Community Plan Area, I would like to submit the following comments on the DEIR for the proposed La Brea Gateway development at La Brea and Willoughby. I am generally in support of the project as it is currently designed with the RAS4 density.

1. The project is clearly larger than most of the adjacent uses, but I think the set-backs and step-downs at the southwest corner of the project will help minimize impacts on the low-density residential neighborhood that lies in that direction.

2. Neighborhood opposition does not seem to consider that the existing industrial zoning could allow for much larger buildings than are currently located on the site. The existing industrial zoning could also allow for uses that would be a much worse neighbor than the proposed mixed-use project.

3. Neighborhood critics of the project claim to be concerned about the loss of industrial jobs. I think this argument is disingenuous: I doubt that many locals would prefer to have more auto repair or light manufacturing in the neighborhood. This is an opportunistic argument from NIMBYs.

4. In general, this part of town has decent (if not great) transit, and excellent access to nearby services and jobs. This is the type of neighborhood within which we should encourage increased density on corridors. I love this neighborhood because I can walk to many commercial services, and I am located a relatively short drive from my downtown job, and other centers of activity in Hoillywood [sic], Miracle Mile, Fairfax, and West Hollywood. Why not make room for others to enjoy the benefits of this neighborhood?

Response to Comment No. 68-1

This letter is provided in support of the Proposed Project. The letter does not question the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. The opinions of the commenter will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-182 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 69

Jeffery Roth

Comment No. 69-1

I oppose the current La Brea Gateway proposal, a RAS4, mixed use, 7 stories, 556 parking spaces on 3- stories parking, 2-stories commercial, and 2-stories with 219-residential units. This development would've a devasting [sic] impact in this small residential neighborhood.

I feel that a smaller project is needed in this neighborhood which would be more suitable in terms of scale, size, character, and have mimimal [sic] negative impact on our neighborhood. Therefore a RAS3 would be more suitable for this neighborhood where I have lived for 15yrs. I fully support the Melrose Neighborhood Assocation [sic], and the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR report with a smaller development in this area.

Response to Comment No. 69-1

This letter is a duplicate of Comment Letter No. 46, which provides the commenter’s opposition to the Proposed Project and support for the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and findings, and the Melrose Neighborhood Association’s endorsement of a RAS3 alternative. The letter does not provide any substantial evidence to support a challenge to the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. The opinions of the commenter will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-183 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 70

Jeffery Roth

Comment No. 70-1

I oppose the current La Brea Gateway proposal, a RAS4, mixed use, 7 stories, 556 parking spaces on 3- stories parking, 2-stories commercial, and 2-stories with 219-residential units. This development would've a devasting [sic] impact in this small residential neighborhood.

I feel that a smaller project is needed in this neighborhood which would be more suitable in terms of scale, size, character, and have mimimal [sic] negative impact on our neighborhood. Therefore a RAS3 would be more suitable for this neighborhood where I have lived for 15yrs. I fully support the Melrose Neighborhood Assocation [sic], and the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR report with a smaller development in this area.

Response to Comment No. 70-1

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-184 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 71

Dakota Sands

Comment No. 71-1

I am a Homeowner in the area of the intended Gateway Project. I am sorrowful there is a plan to build this project in my neighborhood which is already congested. However I support the alternative to down size the project. In other words if we have no choice about this project going up we might as well have the choice about how compatible the size of the structure should be as to minimally impact our neighborhood.

Before I owned property here I would travel on Willoughby East to avoid traffic. Now this street has become another thorough fare like Fountain etc. With this project I know the traffic will be horrendous as well as density of residents and working people.

I am requesting your support of the Melrose Neighborhood Association endorsement of the above.

Response to Comment No. 71-1

This letter supports the Melrose Neighborhood Association’s endorsement of a smaller development at the Project site (see the responses to Letter No. 14). The letter does not provide any substantial evidence to support a challenge to the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. The opinions of the commenter will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-185 ENV-2005-6164-EAF City of Los Angeles December 2008

Comment Letter No. 72

Lucille Saunders

Comment No. 72-1

I support the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and findings and the Melrose Neighborhood Association's endorsement of an alternative development:

• RAS3, mixed use, 4-stories on La Brea to alley, then 3-stories on Willoughby, with 123- residential units and parking, or

Response to Comment No. 72-1

This letter is a duplicate of Comment Letter No. 48, which provides the commenter’s opposition to the Proposed Project and support for the La Brea Gateway Draft EIR study and findings, and the Melrose Neighborhood Association’s endorsement of a RAS3 or Industrial Zoning Retained alternative. The letter does not provide any substantial evidence to support a challenge to the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. The opinions of the commenter will be taken into consideration by the City of Los Angeles when deciding whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project.

La Brea Gateway II. Public Comments and Responses Final Environmental Impact Report Page II-186 ENV-2005-6164-EAF