comment letter no. 6 - la city planning...review of the draft eir please submit them in writing by...

Comment Letter No. 6

6-1

6-2

6-3



6-3

6-4

6-5

6-6

6-7

6-9

6-8



6-10

6-11


6-12


City of Los Angeles August 2006

Hollywood/Garfield Mixed-Use Development IV. Responses to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Page IV-47


Richard MacNaughton 9107 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 700 Beverly Hills, California 90210 March 18, 2006

Response 6-1

Commentor Richard MacNaughton states that the City web site contains incorrect information regarding the project. The commentor refers to the City’s Case Information page which contains information regarding the previously proposed Whole Foods Market project. The comment is noted and will be considered by the decision makers. However, the Case Information page is not the mechanism by which the City provides notice to the public with respect to CEQA. The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Proposed Project’s Draft EIR (Appendix A to the Draft EIR) was circulated to agencies, organizations, persons who had expressed interest in the project and all owners and occupants located within 500 feet of the project site on May 9, 2005. The Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR was provided to the same distribution list when the Draft EIR was circulated. This notice was also posted on the City’s Environmental Information website (cityplanning.lacity.org → Environmental → Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)). The text of the notice provided on the web site is shown below. This information was correct at the time of the Draft EIR and was consistent with the project description and analysis contained in the Draft EIR. All noticing associated with the NOP and Draft EIR was provided as required by CEQA Guidelines Sections 15082 and 15087.

The following is the verbatim text from the notice published on the City’s Environmental Information website:



Hollywood- Garfield Mixed Use Development Case No. 2004-3814-EIR State Clearinghouse Number 2004101104 Council District 4 Hollywood Project Address: 5555 Hollywood Boulevard, 1711, 1717, 1723-1723¾ North Garfield Place Project Description The proposed project consists of the new construction of a mixed-use development containing 108 multi-family residential units and 10,000 square feet of commercial/retail space. Parking for the proposed project would be contained in two parking levels (one ground level and one subterranean). REVIEW LOCATIONS AND COMMENT DUE DATE: If you wish to submit comments following review of the Draft EIR please submit them in writing by May 19, 2006. Jonathan Riker, Environmental Review Coordinator Environmental Review Section Department of City Planning 200 North Spring Street, Room 750 Los Angeles, California 90012 Hardcopies of the Draft Environmental Impact Report or the documents referenced in the EIR, are available for review at the following locations: Department of City Planning 200 North Spring Street, Room 750 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Central Library 630 W. 6th Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Los Feliz Branch Library 1874 Hillhurst Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90027 Will and Ariel Durant Regional Library 7140 W. Sunset Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90046

Response 6-2

The commentor suggests that the applicant is advertising the project site for sale with less parking than previously represented. The Draft EIR stated that the project would provide parking meeting City Code requirements, with the potential to include up to 183 parking spaces. The project has been since revised



to increase parking supply to 190 spaces, while reducing the residential unit count from 108 to 90 and commercial square footage from 10,000 to 6,000. Parking supply would not only exceed the City’s minimum requirements for the proposed uses, but would exceed the maximum parking supply permitted under the SNAP by four spaces, if the requested exception from the SNAP is approved. The Proposed Project would provide for its own parking needs on site and would not contribute to neighborhood parking impacts.

Response 6-3

The commentor asserts that the information provided on the Case Information page deprives the public of sufficient information to meaningfully respond. As noted above in Response 6-1, the Case Information page is not the means by which this information and noticing is provided. The City provided proper notice of both the NOP and Draft EIR and the Draft EIR was made available for a public comment period of 45 days, as required by CEQA. Since the commentor’s letter preceded the release of the Draft EIR for public and agency review, this comment was premature. The Draft EIR included a complete project description meeting the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 and consideration and discussion of significant environmental impacts meeting the requirements of Guidelines Section 15126.2. The commentor did not submit comments relating to the Draft EIR during the designated public comment period.

Response 6-4

The commentor suggests that the location of the project driveway was being withheld from public view. This suggestion is incorrect. The Draft EIR shows a site plan (Figure II-3, page II-5) that indicates the location of the project driveway on Garfield Place. The driveway is located a safe distance north of the Garfield/Hollywood intersection, 100 feet, with room for five northbound vehicles to queue south of the driveway. With only 48 cars approaching the driveway in the northbound direction on Garfield during the PM peak hour, attempting to turn left into the site across 101 southbound vehicles (one every 36 seconds), there should not be a queue of more than one or two vehicles at any one time. The driveway is located so as not to attract traffic too far north onto Garfield in order to reduce the impact on the residential portion of the street.

Response 6-5

The commentor suggests that the project has no room for a dedicated right turn lane from Garfield onto Hollywood Boulevard, even though the Councilmember for the area reportedly favors such dedicated lanes. The level of service calculations at the intersection of Hollywood Boulevard/Garfield Place were conducted with the assumption of one shared left turn/right turn lane and the level of service was shown to be LOS C in the a.m. peak hour and LOS B in the p.m. peak hour, including Proposed Project traffic. The intersection therefore operates at an acceptable level of service without the dedicated right turn only lane. If needed in the future, the right turn lane could be provided by prohibiting parking along the project frontage on the west side of Garfield Place, south of the project driveway, but this would reduce the supply of on-street parking. Regardless, inclusion of a dedicated right turn lane at this location would not be warranted, based on projected traffic conditions at project completion.



Response 6-6

The commentor cites a noise study conducted by the Community Redevelopment Agency in conjunction with the First Amendment to the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan to suggest that unacceptable noise levels currently exist in the project area which would be exascerbated by the Proposed Project. The analysis that was conducted for the Redevelopment Amendment EIR was a program level analysis that was designed to address the potential effects a 26-year buildout of the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area, with resulting total development levels of over 20 million square feet of commercial development and 5,800 residential units. The analysis considered a representative sample of roadway segments located throughout the Redevelopment Project Area. The segment referred to by the commentor consisted of “Hollywood Boulevard, East of Wilton Place”, a 0.3 mile segment that experiences varying traffic levels and notably higher levels closer to the freeway (away from the project site). The Draft EIR, on the other hand, included an analysis of multiple locations immediately adjacent to the project site and in the surrounding area that more accurately represents existing noise levels at and near the project site. The monitored noise levels ranged from 55.6 dBA to 65.6 dBA (Draft EIR, page IV.D-5). These levels are within the normally acceptable (up to 65 dBA) and conditionally acceptable (up to 70 dBA) ranges3 for multi-family residential areas (Draft EIR, page IV.D-9). Noise levels were also modeled, based on current traffic counts, at smaller segments on Hollywood Boulevard. These modeled noise levels ranged from 62.2 to 63.8 dBA between Western Avenue and Wilton Place (Draft EIR, page IV.D-7), within the Normally Acceptable level for multifamily residential uses. These measurements and calculations provide a considerably more refined analysis of the existing noise levels than is provided in the Redevelopment Plan Amendment EIR analysis. The Draft EIR also includes an analysis of potential increase in projected traffic noise levels as a result of project and cumulative traffic. The analysis shows that projected noise level increases would be less than the 3 dBA threshold of audibility and therefore impacts associated with traffic noise would be less than significant.

Response 6-7

The commentor suggests that the features of the project directly relevant to transportation and noise have been withheld from the public. This suggestion is incorrect. The relevant features of the Proposed Project, along with the resulting impacts related to traffic and noise, were included in the Draft EIR, which was circulated for public and agency review after the commentor submitted this letter.

Response 6-8

The commentor suggests that the applicant intends to sell the property. Any intentions of the applicant beyond those expressed in the development application submitted to the City that is the subject of this EIR are irrelevant. The City is obligated under CEQA to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of a proposed project whenever a development application is filed. Any change that may occur in the ultimate use of the property, if any, is speculative and beyond the scope of this EIR.

3 “Conditionally Acceptable” means new construction should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in project design.



Response 6-9

The commentor asserts that the public’s right to make intelligent contributions has been abridged. The commentor’s opinion is noted and will be considered by the decision makers. With respect to information provided as part of the noticing process for the EIR, see Response No. 6-1. However, considering that the commentor submitted this letter prior to public circulation and review of the Draft EIR and did not submit any comments on the Draft EIR during the designated review period, this comment must be considered premature. As evidenced by other comment letters received during the designated review period, the public was provided ample opportunity to comment on the project and the analyses provided in the Draft EIR.

Response 6-10

The commentor suggests that, because the applicant does not intend to building on the lot, the EIR process should be ended. The commentor’s opinion is noted and will be considered by the decision makers. With respect to the City’s obligations regarding the applicant’s intentions for the project site, see Response No. 6-8.

Response 6-11

The commentor provided information regarding potential sale of the project site. As noted in Response 6-8, the applicant has submitted an application for development of the proposed project site that the City is obligated to process. This EIR comprises a part of that development review process under City procedures.

Response 6-12

The commentor provided a printout of the Case Information Summary Sheet regarding the project site. As noted in Response No. 6-1, this site does not provide official noticing of actions taken by the City under CEQA. The Case Information has been updated.

7-1


7-3

7-2

7-1



7-3

7-3

7-4


7-5

7-6



7-6

7-7

7-8

7-9



7-10




Richard MacNaughton Hollywoodians Encouraging Local Planning 9107 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 700 Beverly Hills, California 90210 March 17, 2006

Response 7-1

Commentor Hollywoodians Encouraging Local Planning indicates that the applicant has not returned to the Planning and Land Use Management Committee of the Hollywood United Neighborhood Council and therefore no community organization will support the Proposed Project. The commentor’s opinion is noted and will be considered by the decisionmakers.

Response 7-2

The commentor suggests that the applicant is selling the property and is using the EIR process to increase the sales price. See Response Nos. 6-8 and 6-11.

Response 7-3

The commentor suggests that noise levels in the area are already unacceptable. See Response No. 6-6. In addition, the commentor suggests that, based on the CRA analysis, future noise levels with the project would be unacceptable. The commentor’s reliance on the CRA analysis for conclusions related to the Proposed Project is misleading. The CRA analysis was based on a 26-year buildout of the entire Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area, including, in varying combinations, total development of up to 20 million square feet of commercial development and up to 5,800 housing units throughout the Redevelopment Project Area. This is a considerably larger increase in development than would occur under the Proposed Project. As noted in Response 6-6, a specific analysis of the potential traffic noise impacts of the Proposed Project, as well as related projects, was included in the Draft EIR, which concludes that project-related and cumulative increases in noise levels would be below the City’s significance threshold and that resulting noise levels would be within acceptable levels for multi-family residential areas.

Response 7-4

The commentor suggests that resulting noise levels, based on the CRA analysis of Maximum Development within the Redevelopment Project Area, would constitute an unacceptable impacts on the St. Francis Hotel. As noted in Response 6-15, reliance on the CRA’s analysis of full buildout of the Redevelopment Project Area for purposes of determining the impacts of the Proposed Project is misleading. The analysis conducted for the Proposed Project and contained in the Draft EIR shows that the projected traffic noise level, including project traffic, would be 64.2 dBA on Hollywood Boulevard



between Western and Garfield, and 58.3 dBA on Garfield Place north of Hollywood Boulevard (Draft EIR, page IV.D-15). These projected noise levels would be within the Normally Acceptable level for multi-family residential and hotel uses (Draft EIR, Table IV.D-5, page IV.D-9). The maximum project-related traffic noise increase would be 1.5 dBA on Garfield Place, which would be below the City’s significance threshold of 3 dBA increase. Project-related noise impacts on the St. Francis Hotel would therefore be less than significant.

Response 7-5

The commentor suggests that the applicant has failed to work with the community. The commentor’s opinion is noted and will be considered by the decision makers. The project applicant presented the Proposed Project to the Planning and Land Use Committee of the Hollywood United Neighborhood Council on January 11, 2006.

Response 7-6

The commentor suggests that the project site be utilized for additional off-street parking in conjunction with implementation of the shared street concept on Garfield Place. See Response Nos. 5-11 and 5-14.

Response 7-7

The commentor suggests that the applicant intends to sell the property and therefore a new applicant and EIR are needed. The commentor’s opinion is noted and will be considered by the decision makers. See Response Nos. 6-8 and 6-10.

Response 7-8

The commentor suggests that the EIR process should be discontinued. See Response No. 6-10.

Response 7-9

The commentor included a copy of Section III.H, Noise of the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment EIR. See Response Nos. 6-6, 7-3 and 7-4.

Response 7-10

The commentor provided information regarding potential sale of the project site. See Response Nos. 6-8 and 6-11.


8-1

8-2

8-3


8-4

8-6

8-5

8-7



8-8




Richard MacNaughton 9107 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 700 Beverly Hills, California 90210 February 6, 2006

Response 8-1

Commentor Richard MacNaughton indicates that the information on the City’s Case Information regarding the project site is incorrect. See Response Nos. 6-1 and 6-12.

Response 8-2

The commentor asks whether the applicant has provided additional information and whether a “positive” EIR is about to issue. Subsequent to issuance of the Revised Notice of Preparation for the Proposed Project on May 9, 2005, preparation of the Draft EIR was initiated. The applicant provided necessary information over the course of preparing the Draft EIR to allow for thorough and accurate analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. With respect to the second question, EIRs are not “positive” or “negative”. An EIR is intended to provide factual analysis reflecting the independent judgment of the lead agency as to the potential environmental effects of the project. The City has established thresholds of significance for environmental impacts, that are identified in the Draft EIR. If a project exceeds the threshold of significance, it is identified as having a significant impact on the environment. If the project’s impact is below the significance threshold, the impact is identified as less than significant. Complete discussion of the potential impacts of the Proposed Project is contained in the Draft EIR.

Response 8-3

The commentor suggests that the City has tainted the EIR process by providing false information. See Response Nos. 6-1 and 6-9.

Response 8-4

The commentor suggests that, if a new EAF number has been issued for the Proposed Project, the City should circulate a new NOP. A new EAF number was not issued for the Proposed Project. The Revised NOP for the Proposed Project, which provided information regarding the mixed use project that was evaluated in the Draft EIR, was circulated for public and agency review on May 9, 2005. The Draft EIR was circulated for public and agency review from April 4, 2006 to May, 19, 2006. A copy of the Draft EIR was provided to persons who had previously commented on the project in the NOP process. The Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR was also provided to all owners and occupants within 500 feet of the project site (see Response No. 6-1).



Response 8-5

The commentor reiterates prior objections to the May 9, 2005 NOP. The comment is noted and will be considered by the decision makers. The commentor’s objections to the May 9, 2005 NOP related to the identification of issues to be included in the Draft EIR (see Appendix B to the Draft EIR). The justification for including certain issues in the Draft EIR under the title “Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant” is contained in the Draft EIR (pages IV.A-1 through IV.A-30). The commentor submitted no timely comments as to the sufficiency of the analysis contained in this section of the Draft EIR.

Response 8-6

The commentor reiterates comments related to the deficiency of the NOP and City web site information. The comment is noted and will be considered by the decision makers. See Response Nos. 6-1, 6-9 and 8-5.

Response 8-7

The commentor provided a copy of a letter from the project applicant, dated June 2005, that announced that the previous commercial project for the project site was no longer viable and that the project was being redesigned as a mixed use project containing 108 residential units and 10,000 square feet of retail uses. This information was consistent with the project description provided in the May 9, 2005 Notice of Preparation and with the analysis presented in the Draft EIR. This letter was sent by the applicant to approximately 800-900 community stakeholders and other parties who had indicated interest following the progress of the commercial project and in locating a Whole Foods Market in Hollywood. This letter, along with the revised NOP, undermines the commentor’s contention that misleading information was provided to the public.

Response 8-8

The commentor provided a printout of the Case Information Summary Sheet regarding the project site. As noted in Response No. 6-1, this site does not provide official noticing of actions taken by the City under CEQA. The Case Information has been updated.


9-1

9-2

9-3




David Fincher May 2, 2006

Response 9-1

Commentor David Fincher suggests that the proposed development would not be consistent with the neighborhood and will not be properly maintained. The commentor’s opinion is noted and will be considered by the decision makers. Because the residential uses within the Proposed Project will be condominiums, responsibility for maintenance of the residential component will be shared among the condominium owners.

Response 9-2

The commentor expresses concerns over the traffic impacts of the project. The traffic impacts of the Proposed Project were evaluated in the Draft EIR (pages IV.E-1 through IV.E-23). Project-related traffic would not cause the City’s significance threshold to be exceeded at any of the 12 study intersections. Therefore the Draft EIR concludes that the traffic impacts of the Proposed Project would be less than significant.

Response 9-3

The commentor expresses support for the previously proposed Whole Foods project on the project site. The commentor’s opinion is noted and will be considered by the decision makers. However, the previously proposed Whole Foods project was voluntarily withdrawn by the applicant after the prospective tenant withdrew from the project (Draft EIR, page I-2). See also Comment and Response No. 8-7).

comment letter no. 6 - la city planning...review of the draft eir please submit them in writing by...

Documents