Brentwood Final EIR - Section IV Resp. to Comments

City of Los Angeles September 2001_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Brentwood Project/”The Park” Responses to CommentsFinal Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) No. 98-0334-CUB(CU) Page IV-1State clearinghouse (SCH) No. 98111036

364729.4

SECTION IV

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONSAND PERSONS CONSULTED

LETTER NO. GOPRX

State of CaliforniaGovernor’s Office of Planning and Research1400 10th StreetP.O. Box 3044Sacramento, CA 95812

Letter Dated: October 4, 2000

COMMENT NO. GOPRX-1:

This is to acknowledge that the State Clearinghouse has received your environmental document for statereview. The review period assigned by the State Clearinghouse is:

Review Start Date: September 26, 2000

Review End Date: November 9, 2000

We have distributed your document to the following agencies and departments:

Caltrans, District 7

Department of Fish and Game, Region 5

Department of Parks and Recreation

Department of Water Resources


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

Integrated Waste Management Board

Native American Heritage Commission

Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 4

Resources Agency

State Lands Commission

The State Clearinghouse will provide a closing letter with any state agency comments to your attention onthe date following the close of the review period.

Thank you for your participation in the State Clearinghouse review process.

RESPONSE:

All comment letters submitted by State agencies are responded to in these Responses to Comments.

LETTER NO. WOODX

Rob WoodNative American Heritage Commission915 Capitol Mall, Room 364Sacramento, CA 95814

Letter Received: October 23, 2000

COMMENT NO. WOODX-1:

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that any project that causes a substantialadverse change in the significance of an historical resource, which includes archeological resources, is asignificant effect requiring the preparation of an EIR (CEQA guidelines 15064(b)). To comply with thisprovision the lead agency is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse impact onhistorical resources within the project area, and if so to mitigate that effect. The draft EIR for the“Brentwood Projects/The Park," states assessments of Paleontological, Archeological, Historicalresources are "(not required in EIR)." The Commission requests that you show evidence that the projectarea has been adequately surveyed to ascertain the presence of historical resources, and forward a copy ofyour mitigation plan.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The Initial Study dated September 28, 1998 indicated that there was no potential for significant impact oncultural resources. The project site is a completely developed urban site. It is unlikely that archaeologicalresources remain on the property due to the substantial site disturbance associated with previous uses ofthe property. As discussed in the DEIR on page IV.H-4, urban uses have occupied the property since atleast 1928, when a Los Angeles Public Library occupied the site. By 1938 a gas station occupied theproperty; and by 1952 there were commercial uses on the property. Furthermore, there are no structureson the property identified as having potential historic significance. Currently, the property is coveredwith structures and/or paving. The City’s maps do not list the property as being in an area containingarchaeological resources. Thus, the conclusion that there would be no significant impact on culturalresources was appropriate, and mitigation is not required under CEQA. Notwithstanding this fact, inorder to protect any unanticipated cultural resources that may exist on the site, the following mitigationmeasure is recommended:

If any archaeological materials are encountered during the course of the project development, theproject shall be halted. The services of an archaeologist shall be secured by contacting the Centerfor Public Archaeology – Cal State University Northridge, or a member of the Society ofProfessional Archaeologists (SOPA) or a SOPA-qualified archaeologist to assess the resourcesand evaluate the impact. Copies of the archaeological survey, study or report shall be submittedto the UCLA Archaeological Information Center. Further, if the resources encountered are foundto qualify as historical or unique, appropriate resource mitigation would be undertaken whilework continues on the remainder of the site.


To adequately assess the project-related impact on archaeological resources, the Commissionrecommends the following action be required:

1. Contact the appropriate Information Center for a records search. The record search willdetermine:

• Whether a part or all of the project area has been previously surveyed forhistorical resources.

• Whether any known historical resources have already been recorded on oradjacent to the project area.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

• Whether the probability is low, moderate, or high that historical resources arelocated within the project area.

• Whether a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecordedhistorical resources are present.

2. If a survey is required, the final stage of the archaeological inventory survey is thepreparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of therecords search and field survey.

• Required the report containing site significance and mitigation be submittedimmediately to the planning department.

• Required site forms and final written report be submitted within 3 months afterwork has been completed to the Information Center.

3. Contact the Native American Heritage Commission for:

• A Sacred Lands File Check.

• A list of appropriate Native American Contacts for consultation concerning theproject site and assist in the mitigation measures.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Response to Comment WOODX-1.


Lack of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preclude the existence of archeologicalresources. Lead agencies should include provisions for accidentally discovered archeological resourcesduring construction per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) §15064.5 (f). Health and SafetyCode §7050.5 and Public Resources Code §5O97.98 mandates the process to be followed in the event ofan accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery and should beincluded in all environmental documents. If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 653-4040.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The project will comply with Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and Public Resources Code §5097.98 inthe event of an accidental discovery of any human remains during project construction. In addition, whilethere is no potential for a significant impact on cultural resources due to the already-disturbed nature ofthe site, a mitigation measure equiring evaluation of any accidentally discovered archaeological resources,and, where necessary, appropriate mitigation, has been recommended. (See Response to CommentWOODX-1, above.)

LETTER NO. BUSWELLX

Stephen J. BuswellDepartment of TransportationIGR Office 1-10C120 So. Spring streetLos Angeles, CA 90012

Letter Received: November 1, 2000

COMMENT NO. BUSWELLX-1:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding the above-referenced project inBrentwood/Los Angeles area. The project is a construction of a 54,708 square foot, 3-story, 48 foot-highcommercial building to include 9,700 square feet of restaurant space, 13,000 square feet of office use and29,600 square feet of retail space with 275 parking spaces.

Based on our review of the document, the project site is very close to Wilshire Boulevard ramps at SR-405. These ramps are currently extremely busy and may get worse as a result of new developmentproposals. Caltrans discourages certification of any proposal without a cumulative (through year 2020)traffic impact study for this very critical freeway facility.

If you have any questions regarding this response, please feel free to contact the undersigned at (213)897-4429 and refer to our IGR/CEQA #000954/NP.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The project site is located approximately one mile from the I-405 interchange at Wilshire Boulevard.

Because of the relatively small size of the project, it is expected to attract patrons from the localcommunity, and thus, is not anticipated to attract trips on a regional basis. Figure IV.F-3, page IV.F-21 ofthe DEIR provides the project trip distribution percentages. As shown, 15 percent of the project trips areassumed to approach the project site from the east via Wilshire Boulevard. Figure IV.F-4b in the DEIRshows that during the PM peak hour, a total of 32 net additional project-related trips are forecasted forWilshire Boulevard east of San Vicente Boulevard/Federal Avenue. Only a portion of these trips areanticipated to be generated from the I-405 freeway.

Wilshire Boulevard is part of the CMP Highway System. Page IV.F-18 of the DEIR indicates that theCMP monitoring intersections along Wilshire Boulevard, including the Wilshire Boulevard/SepulvedaBoulevard intersection located immediately adjacent to the I-405 interchange, did not meet the CMPcriteria for analysis of potential project impacts due to the relatively small number of project-related tripsforecasted to be added to the CMP monitoring intersections. Therefore, it is anticipated that the projectwill not result in significant traffic impacts at the I-405 interchange with Wilshire Boulevard.

The reader is referred to Topical Response 6 for a discussion of the methodology used in the DEIR toforecast future traffic volumes at the study intersections. The forecast was prepared based on criteria setforth by the City of Los Angeles, which is in compliance with CEQA guidelines.

With regard to the request for analysis of year 2020 cumulative traffic volumes in particular, suchanalysis is not required. The traffic study evaluates potential cumulative traffic impacts consistent withthe requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 15130 of CEQA requiresthat the lead agency (i.e., The City of Los Angeles) preparing the Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR) for the project evaluate potential cumulative impacts by considering the traffic effects of past,present and probable future projects (i.e., the related projects). The traffic study provided in the DEIRcomplies with the CEQA requirement.

In addition to the analysis of related projects, the cumulative impacts in the project traffic study are alsoevaluated through application of an annual traffic growth factor applied to the existing traffic counts. Thepurpose of this traffic growth factor (commonly called the ambient growth factor) is to account for futuretraffic that may be generated at the study locations by other development projects not included in the listof related projects (i.e. because they are located outside the geographic area considered in the search ofrelated projects or they are unknown at the time the traffic analysis was prepared).


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

LADOT requires application of the annual traffic growth factor to the year of project build-out (estimatedat the year 2004). The annual growth rate used in the traffic analysis is intended to forecast annualincreases in traffic volumes in the study area based on historical patterns. The selection of the growth rateand traffic study horizon year by LADOT is consistent with the methodology outlined in the CongestionManagement Program for Los Angeles County, County of Los Angeles Metropolitan TransportationAuthority, November, 1997.

In summary, the cumulative impact analysis provided in the DEIR traffic study is consistent with therequirements of CEQA, and follows the guidelines set forth by the lead agency preparing the DEIR forthe project. The request by Caltrans to provide a forecast of traffic volumes to the year 2020 is notrequired by CEQA, and is inconsistent with policies and procedures adopted by the lead agency forpreparing traffic studies. Thus, the requested 2020 traffic volume forecast should be considered beyondthe scope of the DEIR traffic analysis.

With respect to the height of the building, the proposed project will comply with all relevant codes. ItsFloor Area will be not more than 55,366 square feet in size (1.5 times 36, 910.63 square feet, as providedby code). Its height will be approximately 45 feet (excluding mechanical overruns), provided theapplicant obtains a variance from the present 40-foot limit for Commercial Corner developments. Theproject will also meet or exceed the code requirements for parking spaces and open space.

LETTER NO. ROBERTSX

Terry RobertsGovernor’s Office of Planning and ResearchState Clearinghouse1400 Tenth StreetP.O. Box 3044Sacramento, CA 95812


COMMENT NO. ROBERTSX-1:

The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. Onthe enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies thatreviewed your document. The review period closed on November 9, 2000, and the comments from theresponding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project’s 10-digit State Clearinghouse number in futurecorrespondence 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 thoseactivities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which arerequired to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported byspecific documentation.”

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

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

RESPONSE:

The attached correspondence from the Native American Heritage Commission is included in thisEIR as Comment Letter WOODX; while the correspondence from the Department ofTransportation is included as Comment Letter BUSWELLX.LETTER

NO. JOHNSTONEX

Mark JohnstoneCity of Los Angeles Public Arts Division433 S. Spring Stt. 10th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90013



_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

COMMENT NO. JOHNSTONEX-1:

I am responding to your “Request for Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report” on theaforementioned project to inform you that it will directly involve percent for art compliance for which theCultural Affairs Department has oversight responsibility.

In order to ensure a timely pulling of permits, I would encourage an early meeting between the developerand our department to discuss ways in which the percent for art compliance can be satisfied. Developingan early plan as to how the money will be used will not only expedite the permit process, but will offer atopportunity to use art to mitigate possible effects mentioned the Draft EIR (sic).

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (213) 485-9570.

RESPONSE:

The project applicant has indicated it will meet with the Cultural Affairs Department prior to the issuanceof the building permit for the project.

LETTER NO. BAMATTRE

William R. BamattreCity of Los Angeles Fire Department


COMMENT NO. BAMATTREX-1:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project includes demolition of all existing structures within the project site and vacation ofthe segment of Gorham Avenue, which transects the site. With the northern and southern halves of theproject site unified, the project site will be developed with approximately 54,700 square feet ofcommercial (retail, restaurant and office) uses, along with public plazas and an underground parkingstructure containing 275 parking spaces. The commercial structures will include approximately 10,000


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

square feet of restaurant, 2,000 square feet of office and 42,700 square feet of retail uses, along withapproximately 4,800 square feet of public plaza space. Alternatively, depending on market conditions,office uses could occupy as much as 13,300 square feet of the project, with a corresponding reduction inretail uses. Such possible variations of office and retail uses are analyzed in the traffic and sections of thisEIR.

A. Firefighting Access, Apparatus, and Personnel.

Submit plot plans indicating access road and turning area for Fire Department approval.

During demolition, the Fire Department access will remain clear and unobstructed.

The width of private roadways for general access use and fire lanes shall not be less than 20 feetclear to the sky.

Fire lanes, where required and dead ending streets shall terminate in a cul-de-sac or otherapproved turning area. No dead ending street or fire lane shall be greater than 700 feet in lengthor secondary access shall be required.

At present, there are no immediate plans to increase Fire Department staffing or resources inthose areas, which will serve the proposed project.

RESPONSE:

The project will comply with all Fire Department requirements.

COMMENT NO. BAMATTREX-2:

CONCLUSION

The proposed project shall comply with all applicable State and local codes and ordinances, and theguidelines found in the Fire Protection and Fire Prevention Plan, as well as the Safety Plan, both of whichare elements of the General Plan of the City of Los Angeles C.P.C. 19708).

For additional information, please contact Inspector Kevin Hamilton of the Construction Services Unit at(213) 485-5964.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The project will comply with all applicable State and local codes and ordinances, and the guidelinesfound in the Fire Protection and Fire Prevention Plan, as well as the Safety Plan.

LETTER NO. TAMX

Esther Tam, Transportation EngineerDepartment of Transportation

Letter Received: December 1, 2000

COMMENT NO. TAMX-1:

The Los Angeles Department of Transportation (DOT) has reviewed Section IV.F. and Appendix “E” ofthe Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed retail/commercial development projectedat 11711 San Vicente Boulevard. DOT has no additional comments beyond those made in our initialtraffic assessment letter dated July 26, 2000. A hard copy of this traffic assessment is attached for yourreference.

RESPONSE:

Responses to the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (DOT) initial traffic assessment letter datedJuly 26, 2000 are provided in Responses to Comments TAMX-2 through TAMX-13.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

COMMENT NO. TAMX-2:

INETERDEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE

FROM: Tim Conger, Transportation, Engineer, Department of Transportation

Date: July 26, 2000

Pursuant to the West Los Angeles Transportation Improvement and Mitigation Specific Plan Ordinance171,492 (WLA TIMP), the Department of Transportation (DOT) has completed the traffic assessment forthe proposed 54,313-square-foot shopping center at 11711 San Vicente Boulevard. This traffic assessmentis based on a traffic study prepared by Crain & Associates, dated July 2000. After a careful review of thepertinent data, DOT has determined that the traffic study adequately describes the project-related trafficimpacts of the proposed project.

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

The proposed 54,313-square-foot shopping center is to be constructed on land currently occupied by atotal of 9,128 square-feet of retail uses. The project would also require the vacation/elimination ofGorham Avenue between Barrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard to combine two existing parcelsinto one. The proposed project will generate 3,856 net new daily trips, 90 net new trips in the a.m. peakhour, and 354 net new trips (for traffic impact analysis only) in the p.m. peak hour. The trip generationrates are based upon Appendix “A” of the WLA TIMP and the 6th Edition Trip Generation manual(1997) of the Institute of Transportation Engineers.

RESPONSE:

The commenter provides an introductory description of the proposed project. No response is required.

COMMENT NO. TAMX-3:

The traffic study analyzed the combined impacts of both the increased traffic expected by the project andthe redistribution of existing traffic that would occur due to the vacation/elimination of Gorham Avenuebetween Barrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. DOT has determined that the proposed projectwill have significant traffic impacts at the following three intersections, as shown in the summary of


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios and levels of service (LOS) at the study intersections (see AttachmentA):

1. Barrington Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard

2. Barrington Avenue/Montana Avenue

3. Montana Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard

The impacts at these three intersections can be mitigated to less than significant levels through acombination of traffic signal system upgrades and physical roadway construction. The traffic signalsystem upgrade involves funding the design and implementation of an Adaptive Traffic Control System(ATCS) upgrade to a portion of the existing West Los Angeles Automated Traffic Surveillance andControl (ATSAC) system in the vicinity of the impacted intersections. At a minimum these upgrades canonly be done on a subsystem basis to achieve the claimed traffic mitigation credit. Therefore, DOT hasdetermined that the project would need to fund a 53-signal ATCS upgrade, at an estimated cost of$636,000.00.

RESPONSE:

The commenter provides a discussion of the traffic analysis contained in the DEIR in Section IV.F,Transportation/Circulation. Table IV.F-12, page IV.F-40 of the DEIR indicates that three intersectionsare forecasted to be significantly impacted by the project prior to consideration of the recommendedtraffic mitigation measures. The Table indicates that with implementation of the traffic mitigationmeasures summarized in the DEIR on IV.F-38 through IV.F-41, the project impacts are reduced to levelsof insignificance. The commenter provides a discussion of the implementation of the ATCS traffic signalupgrade, which is a recommended traffic mitigation measure in the DEIR.

COMMENT NO. TAMX-4:

The physical roadway construction consists of two separate proposals. The first being the widening ofBarrington Avenue (north of and south of San Vicente Boulevard) to achieve a separate right-turn lane,through lane and left-turn lane respectively for both northbound and southbound directions (SeeAttachment B). South of San Vicente Boulevard, the proposal involves a two-foot widening on the westside of the street (between San Vicente Boulevard and Dorothy Street - leaving a 10 foot sidewalk) and a12-foot widening along the east side of the street (between San Vicente Boulevard and approximately 140feet southerly thereof- leaving a 15 foot sidewalk). North of San Vicente Boulevard, the proposal involvesa 15-foot widening on the west side of the street (along the project frontage - leaving a 10-foot sidewalk)


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

and no widening (or minor widening - depending upon the final design) on the east side of the street(between San Vicente Boulevard and Gorham Avenue). Along San Vicente Boulevard, changes to thechannelizing median island are proposed to lengthen the eastbound left turn lane. This improvement isentirely within the public right-of-way with the exception of the applicant’s requirement to dedicate andimprove the project’s Barrington Avenue frontage to Secondary Highway Standards.

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment TAMX-3. The commenter provides a discussion of the traffic improvementsat the Barrington Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard intersection, which is a recommended traffic mitigationmeasure in the DEIR.

COMMENT NO. TAMX-5:

The second proposed physical construction (see Attachment C) addresses the reconfiguration for theintersection of Gorham Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard as part of the vacation/elimination of GorhamAvenue. Modifications to this intersection will be necessary to provide adequate access to the project aswell as to improve traffic flow through the intersection. The improvement would: construct appropriatecurb, sidewalk and gutter along the project’s San Vicente Boulevard frontage, consistent with theModified Secondary Highway Standards of the San Vicente Specific Plan; construct modifications to thechannelizing median island to provide eastbound left-turns into the project as well as to providewestbound left-turns into Gorham Avenue; and construct necessary changes to the sidewalks and roadwaystriping on the south leg of Gorham Avenue to provide a safer roadway alignment. Although DOTgenerally agrees with the proposed mitigation, the ability to modify the median islands around theestablished trees is still unknown. This issue needs to be resolved before DOT can approve any final plansfor the intersection. Any final plan must be substantially similar to the conceptual plan (Attachment C),allowing left-turns into the project and left-turns onto the remaining leg of Gorham Avenue, in order forthe traffic study’s and DOT’s conclusions to remain the same.

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment TAMX-3. The commenter provides a discussion of the traffic improvementsat the Gorham Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard intersection, which is a recommended traffic mitigationmeasure in the DEIR.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

COMMENT NO. TAMX-6:

DOT agrees with the traffic study conclusions that, with the implementation of the set of proposed trafficmitigations contained in this report, the vacation/elimination of Gorham Avenue between BarringtonAvenue and westerly to San Vicente Boulevard is feasible.

RESPONSE:

The commenter acknowledges agreement with the traffic study conclusions. No additional response isrequired.

COMMENT NO. TAMX-7:

PROJECT REQUIREMENTS

DOT recommends that the following Project Requirements be adopted as conditions of project approvalto mitigate the project’s traffic impacts to less than significant levels, as well as to mitigate any potentialaccess impacts along San Vicente Boulevard:

A. ATCS Upgrade

Fund the design and implementation of a 53-intersection ATCS upgrade to the West Los AngelesATSAC system, as shown on the attached map. Funding of the ATCS upgrade may be guaranteedthrough a combination of cash payment (allowable up front percentage to be determined later)and letter of credit, prior to the issuance of any building permit. The current estimate of the ATCSupgrade is $636,000.00. This cost estimate is valid until at least April 25, 2001, provided theentire cost is guaranteed, in full, on or before that date. ATCS costs are reviewed and adjustedperiodically and the actual cost may vary if payment is made after April 25, 2001. This money isto be used for system design, construction, inspection, equipment purchase, and integration of theATCS at the ATSAC Center.

If, prior to construction of the ATCS upgrade, DOT were to accept traffic mitigation measuresinvolving ATCS from other development projects impacting one or more of the same 53intersections, a partial reimbursement to the project applicant will be investigated and consideredby DOT staff.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Response to Comment TAMX-3 for a discussion of the ATCS traffic signalupgrade.

COMMENT NO. TAMX-8:

B. Highway Dedication and Physical Street Improvements

Pursuant to Section 4.E.1 of the WLA TIMP and in order mitigate potential access and circulationimpacts, the applicant must make the following dedications and improvements:

1. Barrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard

a. Dedicate and widen the west side of Barrington Avenue by 15 feet alongproject’s Barrington Avenue frontage, consistent with Secondary HighwayStandards, to provide a 35-foot half-roadway and 10-foot minimumsidewalk/parkway.

b. Widen the west side of Barrington Avenue within the existing public right-of-way by 2 feet between San Vicente Boulevard and Dorothy Street, leaving a 10-foot sidewalk /parkway.

c. Widen the east side of Barrington Avenue, within the existing public right-ofway by 12 feet from San Vicente Boulevard to a point approximately 140 feetsoutherly thereof, leaving a 15-foot sidewalk/parkway.

d. Widen the east side of Barrington Avenue as needed within the existing publicright of way (actual widening to be determined in final design) between SanVicente Boulevard and Gorham Avenue.

e. Restripe Barrington Avenue to provide a left-turn lane, a through lane and aright-turn-only lane in both the northbound and southbound directions at SanVicente Boulevard (shown conceptually on Attachment B).


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

f. Modify the raised median island on San Vicente Boulevard to lengthen theeastbound left-turn pocket by approximately 40 feet.

g. Modify and relocate traffic signals, striping, signs, utilities, etc. as necessary.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Response to Comment TAMX-4 for a discussion of physical improvements atthe Barrington Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard intersection.

COMMENT NO. TAMX-9:

2. Gorham Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard

It appears that the current property line of the proposed project conforms to thededication/highway improvements of the San Vicente Specific Plan. Where the proposedproject would vacate the existing easterly intersection of Gorham Avenue and SanVicente Boulevard, the applicant shall:

a. Convert the existing four-legged intersection into a T-type intersection byconstructing a sidewalk/parkway on the north side of San Vicente Boulevard

b. Modify the median islands to allow left-turns into the project and left-turn ontothe remaining leg of Gorham Avenue. These modifications must includeappropriate crosswalks and disabled access ramps.

c. Reconfigure the south leg of Gorham Avenue to provide for an improvedalignment with San Vicente Boulevard (shown conceptually on Attachment C).

d. Restripe Gorham Avenue to provide a left-turn and right-turn-only lane in thenorthbound direction at San Vicente Boulevard.

e. Modify and relocate traffic signals, striping, signs, utilities, etc. as necessary.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Response to Comment TAMX-4 for a discussion of physical improvements atthe Gorham Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard intersection.

COMMENT NO. TAMX-10:

The Bureau of Engineering should be consulted for any additional street vacation, highway dedication orstreet widening requirements.

The required street improvements must be guaranteed before the issuance of any building permit throughthe B-permit process of the Bureau of Engineering, Department of Public Works. These improvementsmust be constructed and completed prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy to the satisfactionof DOT and the Bureau of Engineering. Prior to setting the bond amount for the B-permit, the Bureau ofEngineering shall require the developer’s engineer to contact DOT’s B-permit coordinator at (213) 580-5322 to arrange a pre-design meeting and finalize the design for the required transportationimprovements.

RESPONSE:

As required, street improvements will be guaranteed before the issuance of any building permit, and willbe constructed and completed to the satisfaction of DOT and the Bureau of Engineering prior to theissuance of any certificate of occupancy.


C. Covenant and Agreement

Pursuant to Section 4.B of the WLA TIMP, the owner of the property must prior to issuance of anybuilding permit, on a form designed to run with the land, sign and record a Covenant and Agreementacknowledging the contents and limitations of this Specific Plan and agreeing to complete all WLA TIMPrequirements.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

As required, prior to issuance of any building permit, the owner of the property will record a Covenantand Agreement on a form designed to run with the land, acknowledging the contents and limitations ofthis Specific Plan and agreeing to complete all WLA TIMP requirements.


D. Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) Fee

Pursuant to Section 5.A of the WLA TIMP, an applicant for a project within the Specific Planarea, except as exempted, shall pay, or guarantee payment of, a TIA Fee prior to issuance of anybuilding permit. Pursuant to Section 5.F of the WLA TIMP, the first 30,000 square-feet of floorarea in all shopping centers is exempt from payment of TIA Fees. Pursuant to Section 6.A of theWLA TIMP, credit can only be granted on previous land uses which are not exempt from the TIAFee pursuant to Section 5.F. Therefore, no trip credits can be granted for the previous use 9,128square-feet of retail uses, all of which are considered local serving uses. A preliminary TIA Feehas been determined as follows:

Floor Area of Shopping Center = 54,313 sq. ft.

Less exempted area -30,000 sq.ft

Floor Area subject to TIA Fee = 24,313 sq. ft.

Trip rate for 54,313 sq. ft. shopping center = 8.23 trips/1000 sq. ft.

Trips subject to TIA Fee = 8.23 x 24,313/1000

= 200 trips

Current Trip Cost Factor for WLA TIMP area: $2,129.00 per trip*

Preliminary TIA Fee: $2,129.00 x 200 = $425,800.00**


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

*Pursuant to Section 5.D of the WLA TIMP, the Trip Cost factor shall be increased (ordecreased) as of January 1 of each year by the amount of the percent increase (or decrease) in themost recently available City Building Cost Index as determined by DOT. Therefore, the actualTIA Fee may vary depending upon when payment is made to DOT. At the time of issuance ofany building permit the TIA Fee shall also be calculated based upon the Fee Per Square-FootMethod, with the final TIA Fee based upon the lower of the two methods.

**Pursuant to Section 6.B of the WLA TIMP, in-lieu credit against the TIA Fee shall be given forall of portions of regional or subregional improvements. DOT has determined that the funding ofthe design and implementation the ATCS upgrade and a majority of the improvements toBarrington Avenue would quality for in-lieu credits against the TIA Fee. The maximumallowable in-lieu credit is 90% of the TIA Fee. The final TIA Fee will be determined after allmitigations have been suitably guaranteed.

RESPONSE:

As required, the project applicant shall pay, or guarantee payment of, a TIA Fee prior to issuance of anybuilding permit, pursuant to Section 5.F of the WLA TIMP.


E. Transportation Demand Management (TDM)

Pursuant to Section 4.G. of the WLA TIMP, the applicant shall submit a Transportation DemandManagement (TDM) plan to DOT prior to the issuance of any building permit. The project shallalso comply with Section 12.26-J (Ordinance 168,700) of the Los Angeles Municipal Code whichrequires specific TDM and trip reduction measures before the issuance of any building permit.

RESPONSE:

The project applicant will submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to DOT and willcomply with Section 12.26-J (Ordinance 168,700) of the Los Angeles Municipal Code prior to theissuance of any building permit.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


F. Driveways and Internal Circulation

This determination does not include approval of the driveway and parking scheme for theproposed project. A preliminary review of the site plan indicates that at a minimum the followingconditions should be adopted to bring the site layout into conformance with DOT standards:

a. The project driveway and entrance drive aisle on San Vicente Boulevard should be 30feet wide. (Current plans only show an approximately 20-foot wide driveway.)

b. There shall be no driveways on Barrington Avenue.

Final DOT approval should be accomplished by submitting detailed site/driveway plansseparately to the DOT WLA/Coastal Development Review Section, 7166 W. ManchesterAvenue, Los Angeles 90045 prior to submittal of building plans for plan check by the Departmentof Building and Safety.

RESPONSE:

The commenter describes the proposed site access configuration at the project, which is discussed in theDEIR in Section III, Project Description and in Section IV.F, Transportation/Circulation. It should benoted that the proposed driveway is 30 feet wide, not 20 feet as suggested by the commenter. Asdiscussed on page III-9, LADOT was consulted with respect to the site access scheme for the project. Itis noted by the commenter that final approval of the site access and internal circulation scheme is requiredby the City prior to the receipt of building permits for the project.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

LETTER NO. MISCIKOWSKIX

Cindy MiscikowskiCity of Los Angeles Councilwoman, Eleventh District17547 Ventura Boulevard, Room 202Encino, CA 91316


COMMENT NO. MISCIKOWSKIX-1:

I have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed "Park" project at 11711 SanVicente Boulevard submitted to the City of Los Angeles in September 2000, and after reviewing thisdocument, I would like to request that some specific issues be further analyzed and addressed.

Most importantly is the fact that in the Draft EIR among the alternatives presented none address thepossibility of Gorham Avenue becoming a one-way street with only half of the street being closed orvacated. I would like the EIR to address the possibility of leaving a southwest bound one-way travel laneopen on Gorham in whatever configuration might be appropriate. This option could create an opportunitywhere the triangle of land bounded by San Vicente, Gorham and Barrington could remain as open spacefor the community in exchange for a vacated portion of the street, much like the Village Green in thePacific Palisades at Sunset, Via de la Paz and Antioch.

RESPONSE:

The DEIR provides an analysis of a project alternative whereby the section of Gorham Avenue betweenBarrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard would remain open (Alternative 2: No Closure of GorhamAvenue). See Section VI., Alternatives to the Proposed Project, page VI-7. The DEIR concludes that theretention of Gorham Avenue analyzed in Alternative 2 would result in traffic conditions that are less safeand more confusing as compared to the project. This is primarily the result of the Barrington Avenuestreet dedication and widening requirements of LADOT as outlined in their letter. If Gorham Avenuewere not closed, the tangential curbline separating the San Vicente Boulevard and Gorham Avenueintersections along the west side of Barrington Avenue, (after implementation the project widening ofBarrington Avenue by 15 feet, as well as the improvements to the curb return radius at the northwestcorner of the Barrington Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard intersection), would be completely eliminated


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

(i.e., the intersections would be adjacent to each other). See Figure FEIR-2 in Section V, Corrections andAdditions.

The new corner building has been pushed back away from the corner and is now entirely behind theexisting Starbuck’s building (see Figure FEIR-1, Corrections and Additions). Therefore, the triangle ofland currently bounded by San Vicente, Gorham, and Barrington will be open space for the community.

If half of Gorham Avenue were retained for one-way travel leaving the corner parcel as open space, oncethe necessary dedications for the widening on Barrington Avenue and the radius for the turn onto SanVicente were made, the remaining parcel on the corner would be too small to exist as an independentopen space. In any event, this open space would be right at the intersection of Barrington and SanVicente and accordingly would be comparable to the triangle bounded by Bundy, Santa MonicaBoulevard, and Ohio Avenue, rather than to the Village Green in Pacific Palisades. The proposed project,in addition to keeping the corner as open space, has a water feature at the corner to soften the effect of theintersection, and has a green space in the center of the open space formed by the vacation of GorhamAvenue.

The topography of the land and the slope of Gorham Avenue needs to be considered. If the project wererestricted to the rear lots north of Gorham Avenue, and if the project were built at San Vicente Grade, aretaining wall would need to be built in front of the project to support Gorham Avenue as it rises abouteight feet from San Vicente up to Barrington Avenue. Thus the ground level of the project would not bevisible from San Vicente Boulevard as it would be hidden behind the retaining wall. If the project werebuilt at the grade of the intersection of Gorham and Barrington, then the ground level of the project wouldbe about eight feet higher than San Vicente grade. In this case, either the proposed three level projectwould exceed the height limit, or the project would need to be restricted to two levels.

Unless Gorham Avenue is completely vacated, thereby connecting the triangular parcel on San Vicentewith the other lots, the project can not be built with a San Vicente frontage at San Vicente grade.

In addition, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) has determined that the retention ofa one-way westbound Gorham Avenue between Barrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard will notbe permitted. This opinion was expressed at a meeting with LADOT officials on June 20, 2001.Attending the meeting for LADOT were Esther Tam (West Los Angeles Programs), Tim Conger(Geometric Design) and Mo Blorfroshan (Western District).

The meeting included a review of diagrams prepared to illustrate potential street and site accessconfigurations that could be considered with the retention of a one-way westbound Gorham Avenuebetween Barrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. These diagrams are included in the Correctionsand Additions section of this FEIR, Section V, Figures FEIR 5 through 12.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

The retention of a one-way Gorham Avenue would violate a basic traffic engineering design principleregarding the angle of intersecting streets. Gorham Avenue, in its current configuration, intersects SanVicente Boulevard at a 30 degree angle, which is substandard compared to requirements set forth in theCaltrans Highway Design Manual (Section 403.3) as summarized below:

“A right-angle (90 degree) intersection provides the shortest crossing for intersecting traffic streams. Italso provides the most favorable condition for drivers to judge the relative position and speed ofapproaching vehicles. It is desirable to provide angles greater than 75 degrees. However, intersectionangles should be greater than 60 degrees. A 60 degree angle does not unreasonably increase the crossingdistance or generally decrease visiability. When existing intersection angles are less than 60 degrees,realignment of the subordinate leg of the intersection should be considered.”

The traffic mitigation measures recommended by LADOT as described in the DEIR are in compliancewith the Highway Design Manual requirements. The northerly leg of Gorham Avenue as it intersects SanVicente Boulevard would be eliminated. Furthermore, the southerly leg of Gorham Avenue would berealigned so as to intersect San Vicente Boulevard at an acceptable 90 degree angle.

In addition to considerations with respect to the angle of the Gorham Avenue/San Vicente Boulevardintersection, LADOT will not permit the retention of a one-way Gorham Avenue between BarringtonAvenue and San Vicente Boulevard based on the following factors.

• The right-turn traffic from southbound Barrington Avenue to westbound San Vicente Boulevardis more safely accommodated at the intersection than on Gorham Avenue. Furthermore, therelatively low volume of traffic turning from Barrington Avenue to Gorham Avenue does notwarrant the provision for a separate channelized lane directed away from the BarringtonAvenue/San Vicente Boulevard intersection. Instead, the widening of Barrington Avenue alongthe project frontage from the alley to San Vicente Boulevard for a southbound right-turn lane isrequired so as to accommodate the movement of traffic from southbound Barrington Avenue towestbound San Vicente Boulevard.

� The retention of a one-way westbound Gorham Avenue creates unacceptable “jogs” in thealignment of Gorham Avenue at its intersections with Barrington Avenue and San VicenteBoulevard.

� The retention of a one-way westbound Gorham Avene adversely impacts pedestrian circulationalong the westerly side of Barrington Avenue and the northerly side of San Vicente Boulevard.

• The one-way operation of Gorham Avenue severely complicates the ability to provide vehicular

access to the site. Significant traffic impacts would result on Barrington Avenue and/or SanVicente Boulevard related to project traffic attempting to access the site with Gorham Avenueretained.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


If Gorham Avenue is one-way rather than closed completely, other aspects would also need to beinvestigated, including whether traffic from Gorham east of Barrington should be allowed to cross aproposed-to-be-widened Barrington or limited to left and right turn only. Currently, the storage of cars onGorham moving westbound to enter San Vicente acts as a large right turn lane onto San Vicente andfurther traffic analysis to determine the impacts of its elimination should be done.

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment No. MISCIKOWSKIX-1 for a discussion regarding the retention of a one-wayGorham Avenue between Barrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. LADOT officials stated in ameeting on June 20, 2001 that a one-way Gorham Avenue would not be permitted. Therefore, it is notappropriate to speculate on other traffic control measures that may be taken in conjunction with a streetalignment that will not be permitted to occur. LADOT has concluded that the widening of BarringtonAvenue along the project frontage from the alley to San Vicente Boulevard for a southbound right-turnlane is required so as to accommodate the movement of traffic from southbound Barrington Avenue towestbound San Vicente Boulevard.

Furthermore, if Barrington is going to be widened to create a right-turn only lane onto San Vicente, thereis no necessity to have a one-way Gorham Avenue provide exactly the same movement. In fact, it canonly create confusion to provide two alternatives for this path of travel. The storage of cars on GorhamAvenue is replaced by the storage of cars in the new right-turn lane on Barrington, so there is no impactfrom this “elimination.”

See Topical Response 8 for a discussion of the analysis of potential project related traffic impacts whichconsider the potential net new trips due to the proposed commercial development, as well as the reroutingof existing trips on the local street system as a result of the proposed closure of Gorham Avenue betweenBarrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. As shown in Tables IV.F-11 and IV.F-12, potentialproject related traffic impacts (i.e., due to the commercial project and the Gorham Avenue closure) areforecasted to be less than significant.

The recommended measures to mitigate significant traffic impacts due to the project are summarized inthe DEIR on pages IV.F-38 through IV.F-41. The traffic mitigation measures are also detailed in the July26, 2000 letter prepared by LADOT approving the traffic analysis prepared for the project that isincorporated into the DEIR (see Comment Letter TAMX). The LADOT letter provides a concept plan forthe recommended improvements at the Barrington Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard and GorhamAvenue/San Vicente Boulevard intersections.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

The DEIR provides an analysis of a project alternative whereby the section of Gorham Avenue betweenBarrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard would remain open (Alternative 2: No Closure of GorhamAvenue). See Section VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project, page VI-7.

The DEIR concludes that the retention of Gorham Avenue analyzed in Alternative 2 would result intraffic conditions that are less safe and more confusing as compared to the project. This is primarily theresult of the Barrington Avenue street dedication and widening requirements of LADOT as outlined intheir letter. If Gorham Avenue were not closed, the tangential curbline separating the San VicenteBoulevard and Gorham Avenue intersections along the west side of Barrington Avenue, (afterimplementation the project widening of Barrington Avenue by 15 feet, as well as the improvements to thecurb return radius at the northwest corner of the Barrington Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard intersection),would be completely eliminated (i.e., the intersections would be adjacent to each other). See FigureFEIR-2 in Section V, Corrections and Additions.

The DEIR, and the LADOT letter, conclude that traffic conditions on Barrington Avenue and San VicenteBoulevard will improve, and not degrade, as a result of the combination of the proposed commercialproject, the closure of Gorham Avenue and the implementation of the recommended traffic mitigationmeasures.


There are additional issues concerning the traffic pattern and parking around the site that need to beaddressed. The exit from the proposed project appears to be immediately adjacent to the exiting drivewayof the adjoining parcel. With the proposed project realignment and light installation at this exit peopleleaving the Whole Foods Market driveway could attempt to make an illegal move to get through the lightor cause an accident when someone is turning right onto San Vicente out of the project driveway at thesame time a driver is exiting and turning right out of Whole Foods. This exit should be reviewed todetermine if it is designed to provide maximum safety and separation from other existing trafficmovement.

RESPONSE:

The analysis of potential project related traffic impacts based on the assumed project trip assignment aredescribed in the DEIR in Section IV.F, Transportation/Circulation and are summarized on Table IV.F-11,page IV.F-35 of the DEIR. As shown, prior to consideration of mitigation measures, the project isforecasted to result in significant traffic impacts at three intersections. Table IV.F-12, page IV.F-40 of theDEIR indicates that with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, the traffic impacts ofthe project are reduced to less than significant levels.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

A description of the proposed site access configuration at the project is provided in the DEIR in SectionIII, Project Description and in Section IV.F, Transportation/Circulation. As discussed on page III-9,LADOT was consulted with respect to the site access scheme for the project. Further, LADOT statedtheir preliminary approval of the site access scheme in a letter dated July 26, 2000 (see Comment LetterTAMX). As noted in the LADOT letter, final approval of the site access and internal circulation schemeis required by the City prior to the receipt of building permits for the project.

The project vehicular access scheme provides for a driveway located near the westerly site boundaryalong San Vicente Boulevard, in the approximate location of the existing north leg of Gorham Avenue.The location of the project driveway was selected in part to minimize potential adverse affects at theBarrington Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard intersection. The project driveway is proposed to be placedunder traffic signal control and coordinated with the traffic signal at the proposed realigned intersection ofGorham Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. This will allow project trips exiting the site to turn rightonto westbound San Vicente Boulevard, or proceed to the proposed left-turn pocket at the GorhamAvenue intersection, which will allow left-turns to southbound Gorham Avenue or u-turns for trafficdestined to eastbound San Vicente Boulevard.

The project’s proposed driveway needs to be located as far west as possible for it to align properly withthe reconstructed Gorham Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard intersection. However, the proposed drivewaylocation will not be combined with the existing driveway serving the Whole Foods market. The currentseparation between the Whole Foods Market exit driveway and the project driveway is 15 feet. Appropriate separation will be provided between the two driveways as determined by LADOT in theirfinal review and approval of the site access scheme so as to reduce potential vehicle conflicts between thetwo driveways.

The LADOT letter notes their recommendation that the project driveway on San Vicente Boulevard be 30feet in width, which is the standard width of a commercial driveway. By comparison, pedestrians alongthe north side of San Vicente Boulevard in the area of the proposed project driveway must currently crossthe north leg of Gorham Avenue, which due to the skewed angle of the intersection, requires a crossingthat is approximately 110 feet. Thus, with the development of the project and the closure of the north legof Gorham Avenue, pedestrian movements will be improved by reducing the crossing distance from 110feet to 30 feet.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


Another important traffic concern in the area is that currently several large residential projects are beingconstructed, and it is not clear whether the additional traffic from those projects were included in theDraft EIR traffic analysis. Additional traffic analysis should be done to determine their impact on theentire area.

RESPONSE:

As discussed in Topical Response 6, a discussion of related projects is provided in the DEIR in SectionII.B, Related Projects, beginning on page II-5. Table II-1, page II-6 of the DEIR provides a list of therelated projects, which are also shown by location on Figure II-3, page II-7. The methodology forforecasting future traffic attributed to the related projects is discussed in IV.F, Transportation/Circulationbeginning on page IV.F-10. As discussed in Section II.B, the list of related projects was assembled inaccordance with standards set forth in the State CEQA Guidelines. Data regarding related projects wasprovided to the DEIR preparers in March, 1999 by the Los Angeles Department of City Planning, the LosAngeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), and the City of Santa Monica. The related projectswere verified based on field observations and were approved for use in the DEIR by the City of LosAngeles.

While not required by State CEQA Guidelines, LADOT requires that DEIR traffic impact evaluations fordevelopment projects also include annual traffic growth factor from the year of the area traffic counts tothe year of the anticipated project build-out. The annual traffic growth factor is used in addition to trafficforecasted from the related projects to forecast future pre-project traffic conditions on the local roadwaynetwork. As stated on page IV.F-10, the traffic growth factor is used to account for increases in trafficresulting from projects not yet proposed or outside the study area.

Subsequent to the assembling of the related projects list considered for the DEIR, several relatively smalldevelopment projects have initiated construction in the study area. A field review was conducted forpurposes of identifying these additional development projects, which are listed below. Also provide is anestimate of the PM peak hour trip generation potential of the projects using the trip rates provided on pageIV.F-13 of the DEIR:

� 11900 Montana Avenue (southwest corner of Westgate Avenue/Montana Avenue intersection).Currently under construction at this site are 15 multi-family residential units. The site waspreviously vacant. This project is estimated to generate 12 new peak hour trips.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

� 11670 San Vicente Boulevard (south side of San Vicente Boulevard east of Barrington Avenue).Currently under construction at this site are 43 multi-family residential units and 5,000 squarefeet of commercial floor area. The site was previously occupied by 10,000 square feet ofcommercial floor area (occupied by a bank and office use). This project is estimated to generate6 net new peak hour trips.

� 747 Barrington Avenue and 11701 Montana Avenue (northwest corner of BarringtonAvenue/Montana Avenue intersection). Currently under construction at this site are 15 multi-family residential units. This project is estimated to generate 12 new peak hour trips.

Review of files at LADOT indicate that traffic studies were not required for these projects, primarily dueto the fact that the potential net new peak hour trip generation of these developments are well below thetraffic study thresholds identified in the West Los Angeles Transportation Improvement and MitigationSpecific Plan (WLA TIMP), which requires traffic studies for projects that may potentially generate morethan 43 net new peak hour trips.

It is concluded that the current development projects identified in the project area which were notincluded in the list of related projects provided in the DEIR will add a relatively small number of newtrips to the local street system. These additional trips are adequately accounted for the annual trafficgrowth factor applied to the existing traffic counts, which is used in the DEIR traffic analysis to forecastfuture traffic conditions, in addition to the future traffic that may be generated by the related projectsidentified in the DEIR. Thus, the DEIR provides a sufficiently conservative forecast of the future pre-project traffic volumes on the local street system.

It should also be noted that no traffic mitigation measures have been planned for these residentialprojects. Consequently, without the implementation of the proposed project’s recommended trafficimprovements traffic conditions in the Brentwood area will continue to deteriorate. However, asdemonstrated in the DEIR, not only are project impacts mitigated to less than significant levels at allintersections with the implementation of the recommended measures, but future traffic conditions areexpected to be better at most locations than if no project were built, particularly during the critical PMpeak hour. This indicates that the project mitigation provides more capacity than is utilized by theproposed project (see DEIR, page IV.F-41).


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


It should also be reviewed how many public street parking spaces will be lost this project moves forward.

RESPONSE:

On page IV.F-37 of the DEIR, it is concluded that the project is not expected to significantly impact on-street parking due to the provision of adequate on-site parking. The project will result in the eliminationof three on-street parking spaces, which are located along the south side of Gorham Avenue betweenBarrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. These parking spaces primarily serve the existingcommercial uses located on the project site. Thus, the removal of the spaces is not expected to create asignificant impact since the existing on-site commercial uses will be removed as part of the project. Theexisting metered parking spaces along San Vicente Boulevard west of Barrington Avenue will bereinstalled as part of the proposed project.

On Barrington Avenue, LADOT recommends the full time removal of existing metered parking spaces:one space on the west side of Barrington Avenue north of San Vicente Boulevard and five spaces on theeast side of Barrington Avenue south of San Vicente Boulevard. Parking is currently prohibited at theseon-street spaces during peak commute hours. Vehicles parked at these spaces outside of the restrictedtime periods contribute to the existing congestion on Barrington Avenue. The removal of the meteredspaces is consistent with the City’s CIP project for the Barrington Avenue/San Vicente Boulevardintersection.


Parking is a large concern in this community, and for this reason all employee parking must be guaranteedto be contained within the project. A mechanism to ensure this requirement has not been included in theDEIR.

RESPONSE:

The project will require tenants, as terms of their leases, to purchase employee parking and ensure thattheir employees park in the garage.

As discussed in Topical Response 7, issues related to parking at the project are discussed in the DEIR inSection III, Project Description, and in Section IV.F, Transportation/Circulation. As discussed on pageIII-3, the project will provide 54,700 square feet of commercial floor area. The primary use is expected tobe retail (42,700 square feet), with the potential for office space (2,000 square feet) and restaurant space


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

(10,000 square feet) to also be provided. The underground parking structure is projected to containapproximately 275 on-site parking spaces.

As discussed on page IV.F-37, the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) sets out more restrictiveparking ratios for the project than the San Vicente Scenic Corridor Specific Plan. These standards takeinto account anticipated parking generated by employees, visitors/patrons, and service vehicles. If theLAMC standards are applied to the project as currently proposed the project would require parking asfollows:

� Retail: 42,700 square feet @ 1 space/250 square feet = 171 parking spaces� Office: 2,000 square feet @ 1 spaces/500 square feet = 4 parking spaces� Restaurant: 10,000 square feet @ 1 space/100 square feet = 100 parking spaces

As currently proposed, the 275 parking spaces projected to be contained in the on-site undergroundparking structure would satisfy the LAMC standards. Because the standards account for all anticipatedparking, no impacts related to parking at the project are anticipated.

At such time final building plans are submitted for review by the City of Los Angeles, the Department ofBuilding and Safety will recalculate the project parking requirements based on the calculated floor areasand type of tenants.

Alternatively, as discussed in the DEIR on page IV.F-38, office uses could (depending on marketconditions) occupy as much as 13,300 square feet of the project, with a corresponding reduction in retailuses. Using the same LAMC parking rates for retail, office and restaurant uses, this alternative wouldrequire 253 parking spaces, as shown below:



_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


Other issues to be addressed are deliveries in the alley and the hours of those deliveries, whether utilitieswill be undergrounded, and the length of the proposed widening of Barrington. Does this wideningcontinue to the alley to the rear of the project or to the second alley north of the adjacent commercialbuilding on Gorham?

RESPONSE:

A description of the proposed site access configuration at the project is provided in the DEIR in SectionIII, Project Description and in Section IV.F, Transportation/Circulation. As discussed on page III-10,access for delivery vehicles serving the project is proposed via the alley along the north edge of theproject site. All other vehicles associated with the project will utilize the project driveway located on SanVicente Boulevard west of Barrington Avenue. Therefore, the only trips generated by the project on thealley are expected to be delivery vehicles. Utilization of the alley for access by project service vehicles isappropriate and consistent with the access scheme at other commercial developments in the projectvicinity as noted by the commenter.

It is stated in the DEIR on page III-10 that the project is required to dedicate and improve the alley alongthe project frontage by 2.5 feet. This additional width will improve operations for all vehicles thatcurrently utilize the alley.

As noted on page II-1 of the DEIR, the project site is currently occupied by approximately 8,660 squarefeet of retail space and 1,817 square feet of restaurant space. Service access to the existing retail uses iscurrently provided via the alley, which is consistent with the proposed project. Also, the alley currentlyprovides access to approximately 14 surface parking spaces which serve the existing on-site retail uses,whereas the project will provide no access to general parking via the alley. Additionally, the 24 parkingspaces in the Portabella parking lot currently exit through the alley. These exiting trips through the alleywill also be eliminated by the project. Therefore, the number of trips in the alley related to the project sitewith build-out of the proposed project is expected to be the same, if not somewhat less than existingconditions.

The project mitigation measure referenced by the commenter is summarized in the DEIR on page IV.F-39. The improvement is also discussed in the July 26, 2000 LADOT letter which provides a summary ofthe project traffic impacts and recommended mitigation measures (see Comment Letter TAMX).Specifically, the project is required to dedicate 15 feet of property along the project’s Barrington Avenuefrontage and widen Barrington Avenue by 15 feet. The dedication and widening of Barrington Avenuedoes not extend north of the alley adjacent to the project site, since the adjacent office building has notbeen set back to allow the required street widening. The improvement allows for the southbound


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

Barrington Avenue approach to the San Vicente Boulevard intersection to be restriped to provide threelanes: one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane.

As indicated on page IV.I-14, the DEIR recommends that deliveries be limited to the daytime hours of 9a.m. to 5 p.m.

Section 14 of the San Vicente Scenic Corridor Specific Plan requires new projects to place utility linesunderground, at no cost to the City. However, a preliminary investigation of the under-grounding ofutilities conducted by the DWP indicates that the utilities in front of the project site could not be under-grounded alone, but only in conjunction with the under-grounding of all utilities from the alley south ofMontana to the alley south of Darlington. In light of this comment, the project applicant has indicated itswillingness to accept a mitigation measure requiring it to pay its proportionate cost of the under-grounding if the City decides to underground all of the utilities.


It is important that the EIR also clarify that no trees will be removed from the parkway on San VicenteBoulevard.

RESPONSE:

Additional review was conducted of the potential project effects to the Coral trees located within themedian of San Vicente Boulevard. This review revealed that one of the previously established trees in theSan Vicente Boulevard median (west of Gorham Avenue) had been removed since the release of theDEIR for public circulation. In its place, two smaller trees have planted on either side of the prior tree.To accommodate the traffic improvements recommended by LADOT as described in the DEIR, one ofthe newly planted trees will be relocated within the median. Because this tree will be relocated on themedian, the relocation is not deemed to be a significant impact.

In addition to the relocation of the newly planted Coral tree, LADOT has recommended a slightmodification to the traffic improvements on San Vicente Boulevard so as to limit encroachment to theroot system and canopies of the remaining trees. The modifications will actually result in longer left-turnstorage pockets as compared to the previously recommended plan. A copy of this revised plan is on fileat LADOT.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


I appreciate your taking the time to review my comments and the many others submitted by thecommunity. I look forward to working with you and your department to ensure that the this processprovides an EIR that completely discusses and analyzes all of the pertinent issues important to theBrentwood community and sets forth all appropriate mitigation means and alternatives for consideration.

RESPONSE:

A copy of this Final EIR will be forward to Councilperson Miscikowski for her review concurrent with itscirculation to the public.

LETTER NO. OLIVEX

Ron OliveLand Development GroupInter-Departmental Correspondence


COMMENT NO. OLIVEX-1:

The staff of the Bureau of Engineering has reviewed your referral, dated September 29, 2000. Pleasediscuss the following comments in the Final EIR:

STREETS

The Final EIR should address all of the comments in previous Bureau of Engineering ‘s (sic) commentsdated November 19, 1998, on the Notice of Preparation. In particular, for the intersection of San VicenteBoulevard and Barrington Avenue. The Bureau requested that “The Draft EIR should provide a detaileddiscussion together with dimensions of the street design, street dedication, and construction of theproposed street intersection". The Draft EIR did not address this request. In addition, the plot planincluded in the Notice of Preparation showing a proposed turning lane at this intersection is not includedin the Draft EIR. It is unclear if that proposal is still being considered.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The Bureau of Engineering’s 1998 letter containing comments on the Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) wasreproduced in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. These comments were considered in the preparation of theDraft EIR, as required by CEQA. Although no formal written response to these comments was requiredat the time they were made, in light of the present comment on the Draft EIR, a brief response is providedbelow.

The Department’s 1998 NOP comment letter contained four enumerated sections. Addressing each inturn:

Section 1 - Dedications of land and street improvements

“A minimum 15-foot wide strip of land on Barrington Avenue along the project site should bededicated in accordance with the Secondary Highway standards with flare section.

“A minimum 2.5-foot wide strip of land should be dedicated and improved along the alleynortherly of the site.

“Additional public street dedications and street improvements should be provided alongBarrington Avenue, San Vicente Boulevard and over the triangular-shaped parcel of landsoutherly of Gorham Avenue in conjunction with the proposed vacation and reconfiguration ofthe Gorham Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard intersection.

“Curb ramps should be constructed on all appropriate locations adjacent to the site per CityEngineer’s standards and requirements of the ‘Americans with Disabilities Act’.

“The plot plan in the Notice of Preparation shows a proposed reconfigured Gorham Avenue andSan Vicente Boulevard intersection. The DEIR should provide a detailed discussion togetherwith dimensions of the design, street dedication, and construction of the proposed streetintersection. The discussion should also include a comprehensive traffic circulation and itsimpact on Gorham Avenue and other existing streets in this area.”

Response to Section 1:

The requested dedications of a 15-foot wide strip of land on Barrington Avenue, and a 2.5 wide strip ofland along the alley northerly of the site, as well as the additional public street dedications and streetimprovements related to the proposed vacation and reconfiguration of the Gorham Avenue and SanVicente Boulevard intersection, are reflected in the project description. (See DEIR, p. III-10.) Curbramps will be constructed on all appropriate locations adjacent to the site consistent with the City


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

Engineer’s standards, and the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The reconfigurationof Gorham Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard would involve the widening of Barrington Avenue by 15feet, and would allow for the southbound Barrington Avenue approach to the San Vicente Boulevardintersection to be restriped to provide three lanes: one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turnlane. This improvement is summarized in the DEIR on page IV.F-39, and is graphically displayed in aplot plan in this FEIR, at Figure FEIR-3 to this FEIR. The analysis of potential project related trafficimpacts with this improvement is contained in the DEIR in Section IV.F, Transportation/Circulation, andthese impacts are discussed further in Topical Response 8 to this FEIR. An independent analysis of theimprovement, along with a summary of the projected traffic impacts and recommended traffic mitigationmeasures, is also discussed in the July 26, 2000 LADOT letter contained in this response to comments(see comment letter TAMX).

Section 2- Sewer impacts and mitigation.

“The Notice of Preparation states that mitigation measures for possible sewer impact mayinclude:

‘Compliance with recommendations of Department of Engineering and other City agencies (asrequired); and compliance with requirements of City’s Sewer Ordinance’.

“First, the word ‘Department’ should be replaced with the word ‘Bureau’. Second, adhering tothe existing laws, regulations and standards will not mitigate a project’s impact below theanticipated levels, and therefore, cannot be considered as mitigation measures. A comprehensiveanalysis of the wastewater flows of the entire proposed project, including capacity of the existingand future sewers should be addressed in the DEIR also, construction of additional sewer systemand a full analysis of the environmental effects likely to be associated with such constructionshould be discussed.”


A comprehensive analysis of the wastewater flows of the project, including capacity of existing and futuresewers, is included in the Draft EIR at page IV.K-4 through IV.K-7. There is no provision forconstruction of additional sewer system.

Section 3 - Hydrology/hydraulic study and mitigation.

“The DEIR should include a hydrology/hydraulic study and to address the drainage dischargefrom the site, together with any necessary drainage facilities to mitigate the additional stormrunoff in conjunction with the development of the site. In addition, a specifichydrology/hydraulic study should be included in the DEIR on the drainage pattern of the existing


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

Gorham Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard intersection. Construction of suitable onsite andoffsite drainage facilities in conjunction with the reconfiguration of the street intersection shouldbe included as project mitigation measures.”


Hydrology issues were analyzed in the Drainage section of the Draft EIR, at pp. IV.D-1 through IV.D-2.Because the DEIR found that the project would not increase the amount of impervious surface within theproject site, it concluded there would be no increased runoff to the storm drains that serve the site, and nosignificant impact related to runoff volumes would occur. The DEIR also considered the drainage patternof the existing Gorham Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard intersection, and the potential for changes indrainage patterns due to the vacation of Gorham Avenue, and concluded that due to existing catch basinsat the edge of the project site, there would be no adverse effect on current drainage patterns. Accordingly,no additional storm drain construction or modification to the existing storm drain system is required.

Section 4 - Utility impacts and street reversion.

“In conjunction with the proposed vacation of Gorham Avenue the DEIR should address theimpacts on existing utility facility and utility relocation. The DEIR should also address thereversionary right of the street area upon the vacation of Gorham Avenue.”


Utility impacts of the project, including the proposed vacation of Gorham Avenue, are addressed in theDEIR at section IV.K. With regard to the reversion of Gorham Avenue, see Topical Response 4(Procedures and Standards for Street Vacations).


Since the proposed vacation of Gorham Avenue is one of the major discretionary actions required, for thedevelopment of this project, additional discussions related to the vacation issues, such as streetreversionary right, consent reconstruction of the street intersection, and utility relocation should bethoroughly addressed in the Final EIR. In addition, any existing street tree, especially Coral treesimpacted by this project should be identified and addressed.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The issue of street reversionary right is addressed in the response to comment OLIVEX-1, above.

As to the necessary consents for vacation, it should be noted that the applicant owns all four of the parcelsadjoining the section of Gorham Avenue to be vacated. As a matter of policy, the City requires consentsand waivers of damages of the owners of all property adjoining the public right-of-way proposed tovacated, and will obtain these consents and waivers from the applicant. In addition, the City requires theapplicant to determine the ownership of the underlying “fee” interest of the street, and to obtain consent tothe vacation from the owner(s) of that interest, in order to preclude an unintended reversion of the vacatedarea to such owner(s). Here, provided the City Department of Public Works determines, as is anticipated,that the applicant owns the parcels having the fee interest, the necessary consents can be obtained entirelyfrom the applicant.

As to the reconstruction of the street intersection and utility relocation, the City’s conditional approval ofvacation applications requires conformance to the Highways and Freeways Element of the General Planand to the street improvement policies for private developments. The applicant will be responsible for thecosts of constructing any required street, sewer and storm drain improvements including the planting ofstreet trees and the installation of streetlights and fire hydrants. Pursuant to the City’s procedure forvacation, all costs in connection with the relocation or protection of any affected public utilities or anyother such facilities located within the vacation area are to be borne by the applicant.

In addition, in any proceeding to vacate a street, the City Council may reserve from the vacation theeasement and right at any time, or from time to time, to construct, maintain, operate, replace, remove andrenew sanitary sewers and storm drains and appurtenant structures in, upon, over or across the street to bevacated, and pursuant to any existing franchise or renewals thereof, to construct, maintain, operate,replace, remove renew and enlarge pipes and other structures, equipment and fixtures for the operation ofgas pipelines, telegraphic and telephone lines, railroad lines and for the transportation and distribution ofelectrical energy, petroleum, ammonia and water. (See Streets & Highways Code § 8340.)

If there are public utility facilities in place that are in use, the City Council should, unless it determinesthe public convenience and necessity require otherwise, reserve and except from the vacation anyeasement and right necessary to maintain, operate, remove, replace or renew the public utility facilities.(See Streets & Highways Code § 8340.)

For more information on the procedure and standards for vacation of Gorham Avenue, the reader isreferred to Topical Response 4.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

As to impacts on trees, it should be noted that no trees will be removed from the median on San VicenteBoulevard. However, subsequent to the release of the DEIR for public circulation, review was conductedof the potential project effects to the Coral trees located within the median. This review revealed that oneof the previously established trees in the median (west of Gorham Avenue) had been removed since therelease of the DEIR. In its place, two smaller trees have planted on either side of the prior tree. Toaccommodate the traffic improvements recommended by LADOT as described in the DEIR, one of thenewly planted trees will be relocated within the median. The relocation of this newly planted tree is notdeemed to be a significant impact, because it is not being permanently removed.

In addition to the relocation of the newly planted Coral tree, LADOT has recommended a slightmodification to the traffic improvements on San Vicente Boulevard so as to limit encroachment to theroot system and canopies of the remaining trees. The modifications will actually result in longer left-turnstorage pockets as compared to the previously recommended plan. A copy of this revised plan is on fileat LADOT.


The Draft EIR stated that participating in the City’s proposed widening on the east side of BarringtonAvenue would be one of the mitigating measures for this project. The City’s Capital ImprovementsProjects (CIP) are only proposals and may not result in construction. Unless the developer agrees toconstruct the improvements to supersede the CIP, the Final EIR should address the appropriateness ofincluding this as a project mitigation measure.

RESPONSE:

The proposed mitigation measure contemplates that project approval be conditioned upon the developeragreeing to fund the City’s proposed widening of the east side of Barrington Avenue, regardless ofwhether the City determines to proceed under its Capital Improvements Projects (CIP) program. Thismeasure was identified in the Draft EIR as one of several measures which, taken together, would reducethe traffic impact of the project below the level of significance. However, in the event the City were tofail to complete the improvement pursuant to the CIP, other mitigation measures identified in the DraftEIR would be sufficient, in themselves, to mitigate the impact below a level of significance.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

The foregoing conclusion is clarified by an analysis prepared in response to the comment by the project’straffic engineer, Lincott Law & Greenspan. This analysis shows that the only physical improvementsrequired to mitigate project impacts to less than significant levels are as follows:

1. Dedicate and widen the west side of Barrington Avenue by 15 feet along the project’s BarringtonAvenue frontage, consistent with Secondary Highway standards, to provide a 35-foot half-roadway and a 10-foot minimum sidewalk/parkway.

2. Restripe Barrington Avenue to provide one left-turn lane and one optional through/right-turnlane in the northbound direction, as well as one left-turn lane, one through lane and one right-turnlane in the southbound direction on the approaches to the San Vicente Boulevard intersection.

3. Modify and relocate traffic signals, striping, utilities, etc. affected by the widening describedabove.

The following table, prepared by the traffic engineer, provides a summary of the Volume-to-Capacityratios (V/C) and Levels of Service (LOS) at the Barrington Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard intersectionbased on the implementation of the required improvements outlined above. It should be noted that themitigation measures include the effect of implementing the ATCS traffic signal improvementsrecommended in the DEIR to be funded by the project, which LADOT has determined improves theintersection V/C ratios by 0.03.

Barrington Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard Intersection: Analysis of Physical ImprovementsRequired to Mitigate Project Impacts

Peak Hour Year 2004 w/oProject

Year 2004w/Project

Project Impact Projectw/RequiredMitigation

Impactw/RequiredMitigation

V/C LOS V/C LOS change V/C V/C LOS change V/C

AM 0.683 B 0.743 C +0.060* 0.630 B -0.053**

PM 0.897 D 1.014 F +0.117* 0.882 D -0.015**

* Denotes significant impact

** Denotes less than significant impact

Based on the foregoing analysis, the traffic engineer has concluded that the following improvements,although recommended in the DEIR, are not essential to mitigate project-related significant trafficimpacts below the level of significance:


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

4. Widen the west side of Barrington Avenue within existing public right-of-way by 2 feet betweenSan Vicente Boulevard and Dorothy Street, leaving a 10-foot sidewalk/parkway.

5. Widen the east side of Barrington Avenue, within the existing public right-of-way by 12 feet fromSan Vicente Boulevard to a point approximately 140 feet southerly thereof, leaving a 15-footsidewalk/parkway.

6. Widen the east side of Barrington Avenue within the existing public right-of-way between SanVicente Boulevard and Gorham Avenue.

7. Restripe northbound Barrington Avenue to provide one left-turn lane, one through lane and oneright-turn lane on the approach to the San Vicente Boulevard intersection.

8. Modify and relocate traffic signals, striping, utilities, etc. affected by the widening describedabove.


Furthermore, a 5-foot wide strip of land along the north side of San Vicente Boulevard adjoining theproject site should be dedicated for street purposes. The existing half roadway on north side of SanVicente should be widened to a width of 35 feet along the property, including the proposed GorhamAvenue vacation with concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Also, the existing half roadway of BarringtonAvenue on southwest side of the project should be widened to a width of 35 feet along the property,including Gorham Avenue proposed vacation with concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk. The alley on thenorth side of the project site should also be improved by suitable surfacing and alley intersection atBarrington Avenue satisfactory to the City Engineer.

RESPONSE:

Neither the project’s traffic study nor the July 26, 2000 LADOT letter (see Comment Letter TAMX)which provides a summary of the project traffic impacts and recommended mitigation measures haveidentified a project impact that would be mitigated by the suggested 5-foot wide dedication for streetpurposes on the north side of San Vicente Boulevard. Barrington is proposed to be widened to 35 feet(for the half roadway) and the alley north of the project will also be improved.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


SANITARY SEWERS

Page 1V.K.5, Line 5 of the Draft EIR states “According to the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation,sewer service in the vicinity of the proposed project site is adequate", then the footnote on the same pageindicates “Bureau of Engineering”. First, it is not clear from the statement which Bureau of theDepartment of Public Works stated the adequacy of the sewer system. Second, it is not clear whether thestatement refers to the existing sewer capacity, or after the discharge from the proposed project is addedto the sewage flows of the existing public sewer system. The Final EIR should elucidate this ambiguity.

RESPONSE:

The source of the statement was Mr. Lee Pitman, a civil engineer (since retired) in the Department ofPublic Works, Bureau of Engineering, West Los Angeles District Office, Sewer and Storm Drain section.Mr. Pitman’s opinion as to the adequacy of the system related to remaining capacity after the project’sadditional sewage generation is taken into consideration.


In addition, The Final EIR should add a table showing the times and locations of the flow measurementsof existing sewer system and identify the correct agency responsible for the sewage flow measurements.

RESPONSE:

The DEIR makes a good faith effort at the disclosure of the significant environmental issues associatedwith the proposed project. However, such sewer flow measurements, as suggested by the commenter,have not been conducted to date. CEQA Guidelines Section 15204.5 provides that the adequacy of anEIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of factors such as the magnitude of theproject 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, andexperimentation recommended or demanded by commentors (see Topical Response 1). Nevertheless,prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant will conduct all necessary sewer flowmeasurements in order to determine necessary sewer line upgrades, relocations, and/or replacements.Furthermore, it is acknowledged that the proposed project will not be permitted to connect to the publicsewer system until all of the Bureau of Engineering’s requirement’s for sewer connections have been met.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


The Final EIR should include at a minimum the following items;

- The possibility of abandonment and relocation of the existing 8-inch sanitary sewer in proposedvacation of Gorham Avenue and dedication of possible sanitary sewer Easement to the City ofLos Angeles.

RESPONSE:

It is acknowledged that the requested vacation of Gorham Avenue may require the abandonment andrelocation of the existing 8-inch sanitary sewer in proposed vacation of Gorham Avenue and dedication ofa possible new sanitary sewer easement to the City of Los Angeles. Such technical details are typicallyaddressed at the Plan Check stage of project approval.


- The location of all existing and proposed sanitary sewers and point of connections to the existingand proposed sanitary sewers.

RESPONSE:

As noted in the DEIR (page IV.K-5) existing sewer infrastructure in the vicinity of the proposed projectsite includes an 8-inch line in Gorham Avenue and an 8-inch line in Barrington Avenue. The proposedproject will most likely involve the abandonment of the sewer line in Gorham Avenue and theimprovement/reconstruction of existing sewer lines. However, the details of sewer line improvementshave yet to be designed. Nevertheless, the project will need to comply with all sewer line requirements asimposed by the City.


- A complete description of the existing wastewater system which would serve the project,including its current capacity and flows. Include plans for additional or expansions of theexisting system.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

-

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Responses to Comments OLIVEX-6 through OLIVEX-8.


- Summary of adopted wastewater plans and policies relevant to the project.

RESPONSE:

The proposed development will adhere all to adopted wastewater-related plans and policies that arerelevant to the project area.


Additionally, if offsite sanitary sewer construction is required in conjunction with this development, thenthe Final EIR must discuss the associated construction activities as if it were part of the proposed projectand include an analysis of the environmental impacts which likely to be associated with this construction,as well as the mitigation measures that will be adopted.

RESPONSE:

Based on existing site improvements and the proposed development, off-site construction should belimited to lateral connections, if needed. Therefore, no off-site construction impacts related to sewerimprovements are anticipated. However, should it become necessary to abandon and relocate theexisting 8-inch sanitary sewer in that portion Gorham Avenue proposed for vacation, the constructionactivities would create minor inconveniences (such as temporary lane closures and loss of street parking)and would not be considered a significant adverse effect on the environment.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

LETTER NO. ROWGHANIX

Susan RowghaniDepartment of Water and PowerCity of Los Angeles111 N. Hope StreetLos Angeles, CA 90051


COMMENT NO. ROWGHANIX-1:

This is in reply to your letter, dated September 29, 2000, requesting comments on possible environmentalimpacts of the proposed project consisting of a 54,700-square foot commercial building that includes arestaurant, an office, and retail space with 275 parking spaces, located at 17111 San Vicente Boulevardbetween Barrington Avenue and Montana Avenue in the Brentwood-Pacific Palisades area.

The Water Services Organization has no additional comments on the information contained in the DraftEnvironmental Impact Report.

RESPONSE:

No response is required.

LETTER NO. SMITHX

Jeffrey M. Smith, AICPSouthern California Association of Governments (SCAG)818 West Seventh Street, 12th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90017



_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

COMMENT NO. SMITHX-1:

We have reviewed the above referenced document and determined that it is not regionally significant perAreawide Clearinghouse criteria. Therefore, the project does not warrant clearinghouse comments at thistime. Should there be a change in the scope of the project, we would appreciate the opportunity to reviewand comment at that time.

A description of the project was published in the October 15, 2000 Intergovernmental Review Report forpublic review and comment.

The project title and SCAG Clearinghouse number should be used in all correspondence with SCAGconcerning this project. Correspondence should be sent to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator.If you have any questions, please contact me at (213) 236-1867.

RESPONSE:

Inclusion of the SCAG comment letter in these Responses to Comments acknowledges its receipt. Nofurther response is required.

LETTER NO. CLEMENSX

Betty and Floyd Clemens13208 Jonesboro PlaceLos Angeles, CA 90049


COMMENT NO. CLEMENSX-1:

My husband and I are very opposed to the Brentwood Park Project. Brentwood already has traffic andparking problems. This new construction would turn the exsisting (sic) streets into gridlock. We will dowhat we can to stop this project.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The DEIR addresses the project’s traffic and parking impacts at pages IV.F-1 through IV.F-41. DEIRTable IV.F-3 indicates existing (1999) traffic conditions in the project vicinity. Accordingly, three of the11 study intersection examined in the DEIR are currently operating at congested Levels of Service (LOSE or F) during the AM peak hour, while four intersections are congested in the PM peak hour. Theseintersections are as follows:

AM Peak Hour

� Sunset Boulevard/Barrington Avenue

� Montana Avenue & Bundy Drive

� Wilshire Boulevard & San Vicente Boulevard/Federal Avenue

PM Peak Hour

� Sunset Boulevard/Barrington Avenue

� Montana Avenue & Bundy Drive

� Montana Avenue & Barrington Avenue

� Wilshire Boulevard & San Vicente Boulevard/Federal Avenue

As the results of the DEIR’s traffic analysis show, not only are project impacts mitigated to less thansignificant levels at all intersections with the implementation of the recommended measures, but futuretraffic conditions are expected to be better at most locations than if no project were built, particularlyduring the critical PM peak hour. This indicates that the project mitigation package provides morecapacity than is utilized by the proposed project. This results in improved traffic conditions in the studyarea.

With respect to parking, the reader is referred to Topical Response 7. As currently proposed, theunderground parking structure is projected to contain 275 parking spaces is adequate to satisfy the LAMCparking requirements, which includes the anticipated parking generated by employees, visitors/patrons,and service vehicles. Thus, no impacts related to parking at the project are anticipated.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

LETTER NO. WRIGHTX

James B. WrightUpper Mandeville Canyon Homeowners AssociationP.O. Box 49845Los Angeles, CA 90049


COMMENT NO. WRIGHTX -1:

Upper Mandeville Canyon Homeowners Association (UMCA) represents an area of about 270 homes inthe upper three miles of Mandeville Canyon. Our only public access is via Sunset Boulevard and alongBrentwood streets. The nearest local shopping area is along Barrington Avenue and San VicenteBoulevard. A number of residents have reviewed the DEIR and have raised the following concerns andquestions for EIR Case No. 98-0334, Brentwood Project “The Park” and vacation of Gorham:

EARTH

A) Groundwater

1. Site conditions [Technical Appendices -- Appendix C: Geotechnical Engineering InvestigationAugust 13, 1996 File NO. 16591 — S pages 5 and 6]

This report uses as criteria measurements made in 1989 at the end of a six-year drought in wellslocated in higher elevations and different geology. Why wasn’t the geotechnical report based onmeasurements on site taken in non-drought period and compared to wells in similar elevationsand geology?

RESPONSE:

Ground water criteria from 1989 and 1994 used in the August 13, 1996 geotechnical report prepared byJerry Kovacs and Associates were the most recent data available at that time. That report concluded thatconstruction of the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint.Nevertheless, it should be noted that the DEIR recommends a mitigation measure (page IV.C-8) thatrequires the project applicant to submit a detailed geotechnical report update for approval by theDepartment of Building Safety prior to the issuance of grading and/or building permits. This report willbe required to contain the latest groundwater data available.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


2. Conclusions and recommendations [Technical Appendices — Appendix C: GeotechnicalEngineering Investigation August 13, 1996 File NO. 16591 — S pages 15, 16 and 17]

Based on the engineers’ recommendations for further exploration on page 16 andrecommendation on page 17 which reads “... minor seepage was encountered at a level above thebottom of the proposed garage. This seepage is currently minor in nature, however, seasonalfluctuations may increase seepage flow rates.” And Notice — General Conditions [TechnicalAppendices — Appendix C: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation August 13, 1996 File NO.16591 — S page 35 paragraph 3] “Fluctuations in the level of groundwater may occur due tovariations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors not evident at the time of the measurementsreported herein. Fluctuations also may occur across the site. High groundwater levels can behazardous.” Based on these statements, it is appropriate that you include:

� an additional exploration of soil saturation, groundwater levels and soil stability

RESPONSE:

At the time the August 13, 1996 geotechnical report was prepared, it was not possible to complete asubsurface exploration of the subject property, because a structure occupied the portion of the project siterecommended for such subsurface exploration. Therefore, as indicated in Response to CommentWRIGHTX-1, an updated geotechnical report containing updated groundwater data will be required forthe proposed project prior to issuance of grading and building permits.

Completion of such studies need not be completed at this time, as suggested by the commenter. EIRs mayimpose completion of future studies as a condition of approval, equating such studies with mitigationmeasures. See, Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California, 47Cal.3d 376 (1988) (imposing air quality monitoring and future completion of noise study wereappropriate mitigation measures); Sacramento Old City Association v. City Council, 229 Cal.App.3d1011 (1991) (court upheld EIR that sets forth range of mitigation measures to offset several parking andtraffic impacts but did not specify which measures would be adopted or were necessary to mitigateimpact). Deferring some evaluation of an environmental impact is proper when the extent or nature of theimpact cannot be determined until technical details of the project are worked out or the project is underway. This EIR analyzes geology/geotechnical impacts but defers only a discussion of impacts that are notknown (or cannot be known) at the planning stage. The updated geotechnical studies will take place after


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

the project site has been cleared of existing buildings and appurtenant structures. CEQA does not requirethat an agency conduct every task and perform all research in evaluating a project’s environmentalimpacts. Society for California Archaeology v. The County of Butte, 65 Cal.App.3d 832 (1977). Anagency does not need to wait for or take account of studies that might provide additional informationbefore certifying an EIR. Toward Responsibility in Planning v. City Council, 200 Cal.App.3d 671(1988); Chaparral Greens v. City of Chula Vista, 50 Cal.App.4th 1134, 1145 (1996).


� a de-watering contractor report during construction

RESPONSE:

The Draft EIR concluded there were no significant impacts to geology, and that accordingly no mitigationwas required. Nonetheless, the DEIR recommended that as a standard City geotechnical condition, priorto issuance of building or grading permits, the applicant shall submit a geotechnical report prepared to theDepartment of Building and Safety for approval. Although that report has not yet been prepared, itshould be noted that a geotechnical report prepared for the project in 1996 addressed dewatering. (DEIRAppendix C, pages 17 and 18). That report recommended that a qualified dewatering contractor observethe conditions encountered during boring excavation, and that upon observation, the contractor mayrecommend installation of a monitoring well and the gathering of samples for water-quality testing. Inthe event the new geotechnical report confirms the neeed for observation by a dewatering contractor, thatmeasure would be taken in accordance with the applicant’s obligations under the report.


� an assessment by City Building and Safety Engineers of the stability and integrity offoundation design for this project and whether the underground garage must have a waterproofmembrane and a pumping system

RESPONSE:

The updated geotechnical report will be submitted to the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safetyfor review and approval, prior to the issuance of grading and/or building permits. Foundationrequirements will be determined by the Department of Building and Safety in conjunction with therecommendations of the consulting geotechnical engineers.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


� that the excavated soil be tested to see whether it is contaminated because of the proximity ofunderground tanks at USA gas station and previous underground contamination at 11703 SanVicente Boulevard. The project should ascertain that there is no migration of VOCs (volatileorganic chemicals) and other contaminants onto the project site.

RESPONSE:

The DEIR examines hazardous materials issues at pages IV.H-1 through IV.H-8, and concludes thatimpacts related to hazardous materials would be less than significant. On page IV.H-4, the DEIR statesthe following:

In 1991, Technical Waste, Inc. removed a UST from 11703 San Vicente Boulevard. Thirty cubicyards of contaminated soil were excavated and stockpiled on the site. Soil samples were obtainedfrom the bottom of the excavation to determine if additional excavation was required. Analysis ofthe soil samples confirmed that the level of contaminates was well below EPA’s guidelines. Nofurther excavation was required. The UST and contaminated soil were removed from the site andtransported to permitted disposal facilities. A closure report was issued for the site in 1992.

Again, at page IV.H-7, the DEIR states:

A corrective action plan to remove contaminants from the USA Petroleum Gas Station site, whichis located just to the south of the project site, has been in operation since 1992. It is probablethat most if not all of the contamination has been removed. Further, it is unlikely thatcontaminants have migrated to the project site due to the southerly flow of groundwater in theproject area.

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report for the project site was prepared on February 23, 2000by Orwell & Kasman, pursuant to standards of the American Society for Testing & Materials (ASTM).The report was based upon a review of regulatory records, historical site information, and a visualinspection of the site. It revealed no presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances orpetroleum products on the property (other than de minimis conditions that generally do not prsent amaterial risk of harm to the public health or the environment). In particular, the report found that therewas no indication that conaminants from offsite locations, including the USA Petroleum site at 11699 SanVicente Boulevard, had migrated onto the project site. Based on the results of this assessment andprevious environmental reports, no further environmenal studies were recommended for the site.

CEQA Guidelines (Section 15204(c), requires commenters to submit data or references offering facts,reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts to support their assertions. Inthis case the commenter has provided no such additional information to support the assertion that an


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

additional investigation should be conducted to determine whether there has been migration of VOCs(volatile organic chemicals) and other contaminants onto the project site. Therefore, no further responseis required.


Also

a) Will the excavation of 58,000 cubic yards of soil destabilize the building to the north ofthe project site?

RESPONSE:

Temporary shoring is addressed in the August 13, 1996 geotechnical report (DEIR Appendix C, pages 26through 33), while permanent retaining walls are discussed in DEIR Appendix C, at pages 22 through 25.The geotechnical investigation concludes that construction of the proposed project is feasible from ageotechnical engineering standpoint (DEIR Appendix C, page 15). As long as the shoring as well as thepermanent walls are designed with the surcharge of the adjacent structure considered, the stability of theadjacent structure should not be an issue. Nevertheless, the City has adopted some new designrequirements since the August 13, 1996 geotechnical report was prepared. These new designrequirements will be addressed in the required geotechnical report update. The commenter is alsoreferred to Response to Comment WRIGHTX-2.


b) How deep are the project’s foundations?

RESPONSE:

The project’s foundations have not been designed at this time. However, the proposed excavations willbe up to 40 feet in depth. The commenter is also referred to Response to Comment WRIGHTX-2.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


c) Is it built on fill? If groundwater has to be pumped from the project site on an ongoingbasis will that cause subsidence under the building to the north of the project site?

RESPONSE:

According to the project’s geotechnical report (DEIR Appendix C) thin deposits of fill were encounteredduring the explorations for that report. Up to 6 feet of fill was encountered (see DEIR Appendix C, page5). The fill will be removed by the proposed excavations and removed from the site.

It has not been determined that on-going groundwater pumping will be required. The preliminaryGeotechnical report indicates that some dewatering during construction may be required and recommendsthat a qualified dewatering contractor observe the conditions encountered during boring excavation.Upon observation, the contractor may recommend the installation of a monitoring well and the gatheringof samples for water-quality testing. These explorations will help to determine the scope of any necessaryde-watering. However, the project is not expected to cause subsidence under the building to the north ofthe project site. The preliminary Geotechnical report provides recommendations for temporary shoring ofthe project’s excavation during construction and for foundation design. Further detailedrecommendations for dewatering and foundation design will be provided in the final Geotechnical reportto be submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for approval. Compliance with the City’sBuilding Code, the requirements of the Building and Safety, and the recommendations of the finalGeotechnical report, is expected to result in a safe project that will not adversely affect adjacentstructures. The commenter is also referred to Response to Comment WRIGHTX-2.


d) How deep is the underground garage? If the design is for 275 spaces instead of 266spaces, will this necessitate a deeper excavation?

RESPONSE:

The project’s foundations have not been designed at this time. However, the proposed excavations willbe up to 40 feet in depth. The commenter is also referred to Response to Comment WRIGHTX-2.

The project’s underground parking structure projected to contain 275 parking spaces will require threelevels of parking, the same number of levels as the previously estimated 266 spaces.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


B) Drainage

1. DE]R: Summary page I-4 last paragraph states that” Because of the location of the two existingside opening catch basins that intercept runoff at the edge of the project site, the vacation ofGorham Avenue would not adversely affect current drainage patterns.”

Where are the two catch basins in question located and is their capacity and that of the 18” pipetruly adequate to channel rain runoff? Would Whole Foods Market and its parking lot west of theproject or anyone else south of the project be adversely affected in a major storm, especially ifyou eliminate Gorham as drainage channel?

RESPONSE:

Drainage is discussed in the DEIR at pages IV.D-1 and IV.D.2. As indicated in the DEIR, the 7-foot LosAngeles County, side-opening catch basin is located at the northwest corner of San Vicente Boulevardand Barrington Avenue; the 14-foot City of Los Angeles side-opening catch basin is located at thenorthwest corner of Gorham Avenue and Barrington Avenue. Both of these catch basins connect to the18-inch storm drain located in Barrington Avenue. Since the project would not increase the amount ofimpervious surface within the project site, it would not increase the flow of runoff to the storm drains thatserve the site, and no significant impact related to runoff volumes would occur.

No impacts to the Whole Foods Market or other properties to the south would result from the vacation ofGorham Avenue. As discussed in the DEIR at page IV.D.2:

…because of the location of the two existing side-opening catch basins that intercept runoff at theedge of the project site, the vacation of Gorham Avenue would not adversely affect currentdrainage patterns. Flows that currently travel south on the west side of Barrington Avenue areintercepted before they reach Gorham Avenue. Storm water that currently falls within the siteand is presently transmitted on Gorham Avenue to San Vicente Boulevard will, under theproposed project, be collected within the site and discharged directly to San Vicente or to theexisting catch basin at San Vicente and Barrington. This shift would reduce flows to the existingflat cross gutter that crosses the San Vicente/Gorham intersection. No additional storm drainconstruction or modification to the existing storm drain system in this area would be required.Overall, the proposed project would not substantially change the existing drainage patterns inthe area and would not cause flooding conditions to occur. No significant impacts related todrainage patterns or flooding in the area would occur.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


2. Dewatering [Technical Appendices Geotechnical Engineering Investigation August 13, 1996 FileNO. 16591 — S page 17]

Where do the French Drains drain to and where would pumped water go? In case of seepage intothe underground garage (after construction) is the water pumped out and where would it go?

RESPONSE:

The French drains have not been designed at this time. However, the design and construction of drainswill be subject to the review and approval of the City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety.This will assure that the project will not adversely affect adjacent properties. Any dewatering required ofthe proposed project would be discharged to the storms drains in accordance with the dischargerequirements established by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board.


Where is the drainage directed from the building to the north behind this project?

RESPONSE:

The proposed project will not alter the drainage from the building to the north. The adjacent alley willcontinue to provide drainage for that structure.


Will the fact that this project erect a solid wall across the southern edge of the narrow alley separatingthese two properties and removes Gorham as a drainage channel cause this multi-family residentialbuilding (to the north) flooding problems in their carport area?


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

Alleys, like streets, are designed with a minimum slope to ensure proper drainage. The alley on the northside of the project site will continue to provide drainage for structures to the north of it. The project willnot cause flooding for the buildings to the north.


Will this project also cause flooding through the parking lot for the Whole Foods Market for the samereasons?

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Responses to Comments WRIGHTX-10, WRIGHTX-12, and WRIGHTX-13.


C) Grading

What effect does the grading have on the stability of the existing building north of the project?

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment WRIGHTX-6.


Has the effect of this location at the bottom of a hill been considered? Because this project is at the toe ofa hill, excavation and construction should not take place during the wet winter months because of thepossibility of damage to this and surrounding properties due to underground and surface storm waterflows.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The geotechnical aspects of the site have been specifically addressed in the geotechnical report preparedby Jerry Kovacs and Associates (August 13, 1996) based on its location as well as its subsurfacecharacteristics. It is not necessary to avoid excavation and construction during rainy periods. The City ofLos Angeles Department of Building and Safety has specific requirements for projects under constructionduring the rainy season. Protection of the site in compliance with these requirements should be sufficientto permit construction during periods of inclement weather without damage from concentrated drainage.


SEISMIC

DEIR: Geology page IV.C-7 bases its conclusions on a report using outdated fault maps. New maps arecurrently available. The project site should be assessed using an updated map, one showing newlydiscovered faults and hazard zones,

RESPONSE:

The geotechnical report prepared for the project site (DEIR Appendix C) used the most currentinformation available at the time of its preparation in 1996. An agency is not required to take account ofnew studies that might provide additional information before cetifying an EIR. Nonetheless, in responseto the comment, an analysis was prepared by a consulting geotechnical engineer, Geotechynologies, Inc.,to identify any newly discovered faults or hazard zones. The engineer reported that all potentially activefaults which are considered to possess a relatively high potential for ground rupture were zoned under theAlquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and stated that the site was not located within any SpecialStudies Zone. The closest active fault to the site is the Santa Monica Fault, located about 0.7 miles southof the site, based upon the Los Angeles County Seismic Element.


AIR

We believe that the number of additional cars and slowed down traffic could have a negative impact onthe air in the San Vicente Corridor and along Barrington Avenue and that businesses and residents in thiscommunity will be affected.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The DEIR examines localized, microscale air quality impacts at pages IV.E-11 through IV.E-14. Thefollowing summary of the local “hot spot” analysis is provided on page I-5:

While regional mobile source emissions do not have a direct impact on air quality in the immediateproject area, the incremental increase in traffic that would be experienced at intersections in theBrentwood area may change localized, microscale air quality conditions as well. Existing peak one-hour CO levels in West Los Angeles are 7 parts per million (ppm). It therefore requires a localcontribution exceeding 13 ppm to cause the one-hour state standard of 20 ppm to be exceeded, if themaximum local impact and maximum background concentration were to coincide. A microscale CO“hot spot” currently exists within 25 feet of the Wilshire Boulevard/San Vicente Boulevard/FederalAvenue intersection. However, because the proposed project would not contribute an increase of 1.0ppm or more at this intersection, it would not exceed the significance threshold for intersections thatcurrently experience exceedances. The addition of proposed project traffic would not causeexceedances of the CO standard at any of the remaining intersections. Therefore project impactsrelated to CO concentrations at area intersections would be less than significant.


PLANT LIFE

Based on a projected future water shortage in the L.A. Basin, we recommend the use of xeriscape ratherthan the usual landscape choices generally used now in Southern California, i.e. impatiens, ferns andazaleas.

RESPONSE:

� The DEIR addresses water conservation at pages IV.K-1 through IV.K-4. Although no impacts towater service have been identified, and no mitigation measures are required, the DEIRrecommends the use of automatic sprinkler systems and, where feasible, drought-tolerant plantvarieties. The project applicant indicates that drought-tolerant plantings will be used wherepractical, but the project also includes a lawn area of approximately 2,668 square feet as part ofthe public plaza.

Project landscaping is proposed in accordance with the San Vicente Scenic Corridor Specific Planrequirements.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


NOISE

1. Traffic Impact

[Technical Appendices — Appendix E: Traffic Analysis for a proposed retail/development at 11711 SanVicente Boulevard page 22 table 5] Traffic consultants project an increase of 2,312 trips per day.Referring to table 3 on page 19 of the same report for the Critical Movement Analysis Summary Existing(1999) Conditions, data shows that local traffic does not flow as well as it should at present time. Thetraffic mitigations suggested will not remove the number of cars from the streets. Does it not mean thatthe noise from traffic will remain for a longer period of time? Does the acceleration of all these cars attraffic lights not create more noise?

RESPONSE:

The noise analysis for traffic is based on the changes (i.e. increase/decrease) in traffic volumes due to theproposed project, for the AM and PM peak hour traffic. As indicated on Table 5 of the Traffic Analysis,the proposed project is expected to generate a total of 56 and 212 trips (in and out of the project site)during AM and PM peak hour traffic, respectively. Based on the proposed project layout, the entranceand exit to the parking structure is from San Vicente Boulevard, which is shielded from the residentlocations. As indicated in Table IV.I-5 of the DEIR, the project-generated traffic is estimated to increasethe existing ambient noise levels at the nearby residents by less than 1 dBA. An increase in traffic noiselevel of less than 1 dBA is not considered a significant impact. It should be noted that the existing trafficflow condition in the vicinity of the project site includes traffic lights and associated noise generation.The initial (baseline) ambient noise measurement includes the noted traffic noise sources (i.e., number ofcars, acceleration of cars, etc.).


2. General Impact

i) Executive summary [Technical Appendices — Appendix H: Arup Acoustics Report No. 31313/Aac/01page 4- paragraph 4] explains that the noise level projections for the surrounding sites range from CNEL62 dBA to a maximum of CNEL 67 dBA.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

In addition, [Technical Appendices - Appendix H: Arup Acoustics report No. 31313/A ac/01 page 8] thereport states that “ Noise environment between 60 CNEL and 70 CNEL is considered “conditionallyacceptable” for multi-family residential. While 75 dBA CNEL is identified as “clearly unacceptable”noise level for all residential uses.” Because present test results in table 3, page 11, already run from thelows 60s to the high 60s, the phrase “conditionally acceptable” needs to be explained more clearly.

RESPONSE:

The “Conditionally Acceptable” noise environment for multi-family residential use as adopted by the Cityof Los Angeles (Noise Element of the Los Angeles City General Plan) is stated to be any area where theambient noise level falls in the 60 CNEL to 70 CNEL range. This applies to any “new construction ordevelopment (multi-family buildings) only after a detailed analysis of noise mitigation is made andneeded noise insulation features are included in project design”. The City uses these noise environmentcategories for the purpose of land use planning of future developments. The existing, and future, ambientnoise levels at the resident locations near the project site are, clearly within the “ConditionallyAcceptable” noise environment. Therefore, there will be no change to the land use category due to theproposed project.


ii) Moreover, how can there be no noise impact if business hours extend from 6:00 am to 12:30 am? Havethe consultants taken into consideration the fact that between 10:00 pm and 12:30 am and after closingtime there will be more car noise than exists now?

RESPONSE:

The noise impact was analyzed for a typical daily operation of the proposed project, which takes intoaccount business hours extending from 6:00 am to 12:30 am. As indicated on Table IV.I-6 of the DEIR,noise sources associated with the proposed project including auto traffic, the outdoor seating area,building mechanical equipment, the parking structure, and the loading dock have been analyzed. Thenoise analysis includes the project-related auto traffic in and out of the parking structure from 10:00 pm to1:00 am. Based on the proposed project layout, the entrance and exit to the parking structure is from SanVicente Boulevard, which is shielded from the resident locations. A maximum increase of 2 CNEL overthe existing ambient noise can be expected due to the proposed project. This increase in noise level is notconsidered a significant noise impact.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


iii) Is the project adding enough noise to push it to the edge of unacceptable? Are you defining the qualityof life of the residents around this project, in terms of a number which is “conditionally acceptable?"

RESPONSE:

The “Conditionally Unacceptable” noise environments for multi-family residential use as adopted by theCity of Los Angeles (Noise Element of the Los Angeles City General Plan) is 70 CNEL to 75 CNEL.According to the City’s Noise Element, residential development in this noise environment should bediscouraged. The noise analysis is based on a quantitative analysis. That is, evaluating the noise impactbased on the changes in the existing noise environment. As indicated on Table IV.I-6 of the DEIR, theexisting noise levels at the residents are expected to increase from 60 and 65 CNEL at sound receptors R1and R2, to 62 and 66 CNEL, respectively due to the proposed project. This is an increase of maximum 2CNEL but yet well below the levels that would trigger the “Conditionally Unacceptable” category.


If future findings were close to or over 70 CNEL, would it not be a major burden on the nearby residentsto have to insulate more and keep their windows and doors closed more frequently?

RESPONSE:

As indicated on Table IV.I-6 of the DEIR, the existing noise level at the nearest residents is expected toincrease by a maximum of 2 CNEL, from 60 and 65 CNEL, at receptors R1 and R2, to 62 and 66 CNELdue to the proposed project, respectively. The estimated noise levels at the nearest residents are wellbelow the 70 CNEL in question.


LIGHT/GLARE (Artificial)

Won’t the proposed long hours of operation (6:00 am to 12:30 am) of businesses operating in this projectbe a hardship on residents to the north and the general vicinity of the project due to excess light and glare?


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The project is not expected to generate excessive light and glare. While a detailed lighting plan has notyet been developed, several general principles will be followed in the design of the lighting plan. Theseare as follows: architectural lighting would be minimal, designed to highlight architectural elements of theproject. Security lighting would be installed as required to provide a secure environment in and aroundthe project. All lighting associated with the project would be directed towards the interior of the site anddirected away from or shielded from, the residential land uses in the vicinity of the project site. Theseinclude the residential uses on the east side of Barrington Avenue, north of Gorham Avenue, and those tothe north of the project site, on the north side of the alley between Barrington Avenue and MontanaAvenue (see DEIR page IV.L-24).

As discussed in the DEIR (page IV.L-24) any illuminated signage used to identify tenants of the projectwould be located to face traffic on San Vicente Boulevard and would be shielded from adjacentresidential areas. Landscaping incorporated into the project on the eastern border of the project site, andexisting landscaping surrounding residential land uses to the east of the project site, would further shieldthese uses from lighting generated by the proposed project. Overall, the proposed project would notchange ambient light levels to produce excessive nighttime lighting that is out of character with the landuses surrounding the project site, or include lighting sources that would spill off the project site and affectadjacent light-sensitive areas.

With respect to glare, the project would incorporate a variety of building materials including stone, cast-in-place concrete, smooth cement plaster, and metal. Where necessary to reduce glare, surfaces would becoated with a non-reflective finish for the purpose of minimizing reflective light and glare from theproject site. Building materials will be selected and located to minimize the transmission of illuminationfrom interior lights. Overall, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a substantial increase inglare that would affect sensitive areas.


TRANSPORTATION-CIRCULATION-DRIVEWAY/ACCESS

A) Circulation

1. Vacation of Gorham AvenueWhy would vacating Gorham Avenue ameliorate the traffic problems at Barrington Avenue and SanVicente Boulevard?


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

i) Executive Summary [Technical appendices — Appendix E: Traffic report: page 1 - 2nd paragraph]states that “…vacating the portion of Gorham Avenue adjacent to the site can simplify traffic flow anddecrease congestion.” Evidence appears sparse on this point.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Topical Response 8 for a discussion of the analysis of potential project relatedtraffic impacts which consider the potential net new trips due to the proposed commercial development,as well as the rerouting of existing trips on the local street system as a result of the proposed closure ofGorham Avenue between Barrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. As shown in DEIR TablesIV.F-11 and IV.F-12, potential project related traffic impacts (i.e., due to the commercial project and theGorham Avenue closure) are forecasted to be less than significant.

See Response to Comment KRISELX-3 for a discussion of the recommended measures to mitigatesignificant traffic impacts. Also provided is a discussion of the analysis provided in the DEIR of a projectalternative whereby the section of Gorham Avenue between Barrington Avenue and San VicenteBoulevard would remain open (Alternative 2: No Closure of Gorham Avenue). The Response provides asummary of the conclusion in the DEIR that the retention of Gorham Avenue analyzed in Alternative 2would result in traffic conditions that are less safe and more confusing as compared to the project.


A study of the numbers of the same appendix on pages 10 and 11 Figure 3(a) and 3(b) shows that existingtraffic volumes at the AM and PM peak hour dispute the fact that Gorham is only used to access “existinguses at the project site.”

RESPONSE:

Pages IV.F-24 through IV.F.-28 of the DEIR provide a discussion of the traffic analysis of the GorhamAvenue closure. It is noted that the section of Gorham Avenue between Barrington Avenue and SanVicente Boulevard is primarily used by motorists accessing the existing commercial uses located on theproject site, as well as “cut-through” vehicles traveling between Barrington Avenue and San VicenteBoulevard. The closure of Gorham Avenue would cause some motorists to seek alternative travel routes.Figures IV.F-6a and IV.F-6b, pages IV.F-29 and IV.F-30 of the DEIR provide the net change in futuretraffic volumes in the project vicinity due to the proposed closure of Gorham Avenue for the AM and PMpeak hours, respectively.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


ii) Environmental Setting [Technical Appendices — Appendix E: page 43 last paragraph). Please explainthis statement “These trips will likely no longer exist on the area roadway system once the current usesare removed, helping to offset potential project-related traffic.” Is it not true that these trips will indeed bediverted to San Vicente Boulevard and in fact the closure of Gorham from this standpoint does nothing tooffset the traffic congestion?

RESPONSE: See Response to Comment WRIGHTX-27 for a discussion of the traffic analysis for theproposed Gorham Avenue closure as provided in the DEIR. Trips currently using Gorham Avenue toaccess the existing on-site commercial uses will be removed from the roadway network at such time thecommercial uses are removed from the site. Vehicles using Gorham Avenue that are unrelated to theexisting on-site commercial uses have been reassigned to the local street system as analyzed in the DEIR.


iii) Environmental Setting [Technical Appendices — Appendix E: page 13 paragraph 3] Gorham Avenueis described as currently carrying an estimated 6,000 VPD. Does it not mean that you are taking away thisoption from all these drivers each day and pushing them onto other streets? It is unclear how this will“decrease (traffic) congestion?”

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Responses to Comments WRIGHT-26 through WRIGHT-28.


iv) Future Traffic Conditions [Technical Appendices — Appendix E: table 10 page 49] shows a summaryof Critical Movement Analysis for 11 intersections. Why does Table 11 on page 52 showing “a summaryof project impacts with mitigation” shows only 3 intersections? Why are the following intersections notincluded: Montana and Bundy, Sunset and Barrington and Wilshire and San Vicente/Federal to name only3 out of the 8 additional intersections which this project can impact?


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The analysis of potential project related traffic impacts are described in the DEIR in Section IV.F,Transportation/Circulation and are summarized on Table IV.F-11, page IV.F-35 of the DEIR. As shown,prior to consideration of mitigation measures, the project is forecasted to result in significant trafficimpacts at three intersections. The project impacts are deemed significant using the significancethresholds adopted by LADOT which are listed in the DEIR on page IV.F-16. The intersections listed bythe commenter are not calculated to be significantly affected by the project based on the LADOTsignificance thresholds.


2. Related Projects

We also believe that the studies are skewed by using related projects which are not so. Related ProjectsDescriptions [Technical Appendices: Traffic Analysis for a proposed retail/commercial development at11711 San Vicente Boulevard page 34 Table 7] shows 7 related projects but only one of which, theArcher School, is related by Zone and District Plan requirements. Please explain why these projects werechosen if they do not relate to the proposed project in the first place.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Topical Response 6 for a discussion of the related projects analyzed in the DEIR.


3. Definition of Peak Hour

Also, is it not time to redefine the definition of peak hour? From our experience, either AM or PM, thehour in peak hour has extended to two or even three hours. All tests and analyses should be predicated onan updated definition.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

A discussion of the traffic study methodology is provided in the DEIR on pages IV.F-16 through IV.F-18.Traffic studies are typically conducted by analyzing the highest hour of traffic at area intersections so asto provide a conservative assessment of traffic conditions. LADOT required the analysis of the weekdayAM and PM peak hour commuter hours as these periods represent the times of greatest background trafficgrowth and thus, the greatest potential for the project to contribute significant traffic impacts. Theselection of a peak hour for traffic analysis purposes does not imply that congestion is not evident at somelocations outside of a one hour time frame.


4. Mitigation Measures

The mitigation measures proposed may not be adequate. The intersections studied in the report are fraughtwith circulation problems at the present time and this project may only exacerbate the problems in thearea:

i) DEIR Summary page I-6: 266 parking spaces are proposed with no off-site parking. We request furtherinformation on the adequacy of these additional spaces given the generation of traffic for the project andbecause we perceive a shortage of parking in the area currently. Also is it 266 or 275 parking spaces asstated on page I-2?

RESPONSE:

The project traffic mitigation measures referenced by the commenter are summarized in the DEIR onpages IV.F-38 through IV.F-41. The mitigation measures are also discussed in the July 26, 2000 LADOTletter which provides a summary of the project traffic impacts and recommended mitigation measures (seeComment Letter TAMX). Table IV.F-12, page IV.F-40 of the DEIR states that with consideration of therecommended traffic mitigation measures, the project impacts are reduced to levels of insignificance.

The reader is referred to Topical Response 7 for a discussion of issues related to parking at the project siteas analyzed in the DEIR. The project will provide an on-site underground parking structure projected tocontain 275 parking spaces in accordance with the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC). The on-siteparking supply at the project will be determined by the City’s Department of Building and Safety at suchtime the tenant mix has been finalized.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


This project also eliminates street parking used by customers of fast food places such as Starbucks whichis projected to be a tenant. What mitigation is contemplated to accommodate these customers?

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment MISCIKOWKIX-5 for a discussion of the on-street parking spaces to beremoved by the project, and for discussion of the conclusion that the project is not expected tosignificantly impact on-street parking due to the provision of adequate on-site parking.


ii) DEIR Summary pages IV.F20 and IV.F-35: Automated Adaptive Traffic Control system (ATCS)upgrades control of the flow not the number of cars which are driven back and forth on our neighborhoodstreets. The critical movement analyses (page F-35) presents an overcrowding and dire need forimprovement now. Reconfiguration of lanes might help but the projection is for 2,312 additional trips(page IV.F20) and the extra lane does not extend to Montana. In fact, the property to the north juts out tothe street and has on street parking. Barrington remains only one lane going south and is often now abottleneck. There will also be the 6,000 rerouted VPD from the closure of Gorham. Are the mitigationmeasures simply going to slow the flow of traffic and put drivers through more than one cycle at eachintersection? If so how many more? Is that good traffic management? Are Barrington Avenue and SanVicente Boulevard going to be “parking lots” for longer periods of time than they already are?

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Topical Response 8 for a discussion of the analysis of potential project relatedtraffic impacts which consider the potential net new trips due to the proposed commercial development,as well as the rerouting of existing trips on the local street system as a result of the proposed closure ofGorham Avenue between Barrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. As shown in Tables IV.F-11and IV.F-12, potential project related traffic impacts (i.e., due to the commercial project and the GorhamAvenue closure) are forecasted to be less than significant.

The project traffic mitigation measures referenced by the commenter are summarized in the DEIR onpages IV.F-38 through IV.F-41. The mitigation measures are also discussed in the July 26, 2000 LADOTletter which provides a summary of the project traffic impacts and recommended mitigation measures (seeComment Letter TAMX). The project impacts at the Barrington Avenue/San Vicente Boulevardintersection are mitigated through the combination of the recommended physical traffic improvements, as


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

well as the installation of the ATCS traffic signal upgrade. The project impacts at the BarringtonAvenue/Montana Avenue intersection are mitigated through the installation of the ATCS traffic signalupgrade. Thus, the implementation of other traffic mitigation measures at the BarringtonAvenue/Montana Avenue intersection are not required. LADOT has determined that the ATCS trafficsignal upgrade in the project area will reduce motorist delay by allowing traffic signals to be betterresponsive to changes in traffic flow patterns.


iii) DEIR Summary page I-8: “In addition to these mitigation improvements, the project should realignthe southern approach of Gorham Avenue at San Vicente Boulevard in order to provide a more right-angle intersection.” How can this project justify reconfiguring the southern approach of Gorham Avenueat San Vicente. Will the developer pay for it? Will it improve traffic or only pedestrian crossing of SanVicente? How will this reconfiguration affect the adjacent properties at this intersection? Will the cars, asthey exit the project, be able to see this intersection? How many cars can exit the project per light cycle?

RESPONSE:


The DEIR only recommends measures required to mitigate project related impacts. The funding andimplementation of the mitigation measures is determined by the Lead Agency (i.e., the Los AngelesDepartment of City Planning). For additional discussion of the funding of the mitigation measures, seeComment Letter TAMX.

At the Gorham Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard intersection, pedestrian crossings are expected tosignificantly improve with implementation of the project mitigation measures. Currently, pedestrianscrossing San Vicente Boulevard at Gorham Avenue must walk a distance of approximately 250 feetbetween the northerly and southerly curblines. This extended distance is created by the severe angle atwhich Gorham Avenue currently intersects San Vicente Boulevard. The lengthy crossing results in somepersons jaywalking (i.e., walking outside the designated crosswalks) across San Vicente Boulevard in thevicinity of Gorham Avenue. By comparison, the project mitigation measures outlined in the DEIRrecommend the closure of the north leg of Gorham Avenue and the realignment of the south leg tointersect San Vicente Boulevard at a more traditional right-angle. This reconfiguration will result in a


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

pedestrian crossing distance of just over 100 feet, a substantial reduction as compared to the currentcondition.

The reconfiguration of the northbound Gorham Avenue approach to San Vicente Boulevard willsignificantly improve operations at this location. Motorists turning left from northbound Gorham Avenueto westbound San Vicente Boulevard will utilize a separate channelized lane in the median and will nolonger be opposed by oncoming southbound Gorham Avenue traffic. Motorists turning right fromnorthbound Gorham to eastbound San Vicente will complete the turns at a right-angle as compared to thecurrent skewed angle, thus greatly improving sight distance at the intersection (which will benefit bothmotorists, as well as pedestrians crossing Gorham Avenue along the south side of San VicenteBoulevard).

Motorists seeking access to the project from northbound Gorham Avenue can access the new channelizedleft-turn lane in the San Vicente Boulevard. The project driveway, (which will be located in the vicinityof the existing north leg of the Gorham Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard intersection), is proposed to beplaced under traffic signal control and coordinated with the traffic signal at the proposed realignedintersection of Gorham Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. This will allow project trips entering the siteto turn left with the benefit of a left-turn arrow, or complete a u-turn for traffic destined to the WholeFoods market driveways located west of the project site.

Figure IV.F-5b, page IV.F-27 of DEIR indicates that 232 vehicles are forecasted to exit the projectdriveway on San Vicente Boulevard during the PM peak hour. Based on a typical traffic signal cyclelength of 60 seconds, this would be equivalent to approximately four vehicles per cycle exiting the projectdriveway (conservatively assuming than no vehicles make permitted right-turns on red). The final timingof the proposed traffic signal serving the project driveway will be determined by LADOT.

The queuing of vehicles during the PM peak hour is not anticipated to generate congestion on SanVicente Boulevard, or substantial delays for drivers exiting the project garage. Because the project exit issignalized, cars leaving the garage will have unimpeded access to San Vicente Boulevard as they exit, andwill not interfere with traffic movements on San Vicente Boulevard. Further, it is unlikely that carsexiting the garage will exit into queued traffic on San Vicente Boulevard, thereby causing delays withinthe garage. First, it is standard engineering practice to assume that when the signal at the project exit isgreen for cars exiting the project, there will be no cars within the intersection from the prior cycle, as thisis prohibited by law. Second, conditions are such that traffic along San Vicente Boulevard would not bequeued up all the way to the project garage, even under peak-hour loads. The nearest intersection is SanVicente Boulevard and Gorham Avenue, approximately 200 feet from the project exit. With the project,this intersection will operate at Level of Service (LOS) A during the AM peak hour, and LOS-B duringthe PM peak hour. The next intersection on San Vicente Boulevard is at Montana Avenue, more than1000 feet from the project exit. With the project, this intersection will operate at LOS-B during the AM


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

peak hour, and LOS-D during the PM peak hour. These conditions do not indicate any likelihood ofqueuing that would reach the project exit.


5. State of California Department of Transportation [Technical Appendices — Agency Letters: datedNovember 23, 1998] states that a full traffic study is needed in advance of the DEIR to analyze thefollowing information: “2) An analysis of ADT, AM & PM peak hour volumes for both the existing andfuture (year 2015) conditions.” and “3) This analysis to address year 2015 conditions including projecttraffic, cumulative traffic generated by all approved developments in the area...”

Has any study been done beyond 2004?

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment BEITLERX-2 for a discussion of the methodology used in the DEIR trafficanalysis for forecasting future traffic on the local street system. The traffic study evaluates potentialcumulative traffic impacts consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Section 15130 of CEQA requires that the lead agency (i.e., The City of Los Angeles) preparingthe Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the project evaluate potential cumulative impacts byconsidering the traffic effects of past, present and probable future projects (i.e., the related projects). Thetraffic study provided in the DEIR complies with the CEQA requirement.


LADOT requires application of the annual traffic growth factor to the year of project build-out (estimatedat the year 2004). The annual growth rate used in the traffic analysis is intended to forecast annualincreases in traffic volumes in the study area based on historical patterns. The selection of the growth rateand traffic study horizon year by LADOT is consistent with the methodology outlined in the CongestionManagement Program for Los Angeles County, County of Los Angeles Metropolitan TransportationAuthority, November, 1997.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

In summary, the cumulative impact analysis provided in the DEIR traffic study is consistent with therequirements of CEQA, and follows the guidelines set forth by the lead agency preparing the DEIR forthe project. The request by Caltrans to provide a forecast of traffic volumes to the year 2015 is notrequired by CEQA, and is inconsistent with policies and procedures adopted by the lead agency forpreparing traffic studies. Thus, the requested 2015 traffic volume forecast should be considered beyondthe scope of the DEIR traffic analysis.


6. Construction

The EIR will need to fully present and justify the traffic management plan and its impact on trafficconditions (and businesses) and the extent of mitigation measures during the 18 months of constructionperiod. This topic is not discussed in the DEIR.

RESPONSE:

Effects on traffic in the area due to construction the project are anticipated to be short-term in nature.Closures of travel lanes on Barrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard to accommodate project-related construction activities are not anticipated, and thus impacts on traffic due to construction will notbe significant. The City’s Department of Building and Safety and Department of Transportation willissue specific requirements for construction (i.e., haul route, staging, etc.) prior to issuance of a buildingpermit for the project.


B) Driveway access

What is the slope of the driveway to the underground garage? How will it affect the visibility and thussafety of egress?

RESPONSE:

The first part of the driveway to the garage will be level, so it will enhance the visibility and safety ofegress. Any car exiting the garage will be completely level with the sidewalk before reaching thesidewalk.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


PUBLIC SERVICES

A) Police

24-hour private security may not provide sufficient guarantee for the surrounding community against latenight disturbances and increased traffic hazard and crime. Are there other actions that can be taken?

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to the bottom of page IV.J-2 of the DEIR, which states, ”According to the LAPD,current staffing levels are adequate to serve the project site, and no unique law enforcement problemswould result from the project’s development.” The source of this statement is footnoted at the bottom ofpage IV.J-3. The DEIR concludes that impacts to police protection services would be less thansignificant. CEQA does not require mitigation measures for those impacts determined to be less thansignificant (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(3)). Nevertheless, the DEIR (on page IV.J-3)recommends a series of measures to be included as conditions of project approval. These measures are:

� Incorporate into the project plans the design guidelines relative to security, semi-public and privatespaces, which may include but are not limited to access control to building, secured parking facilities,walls/fences with key systems, well-illuminated public and semi-public space designed with aminimum of dead space to eliminate areas of concealment, location of toilet facilities or buildingentrances in high-foot traffic areas, and provision of security guard patrol throughout the project siteif needed.

� The project applicant shall refer to Design out Crime Guidelines: Crime Prevention ThroughEnvironmental Design published by the Los Angeles Police Department’s Crime Prevention Sectionwhen designing the project.

� Prior to the approval of the final site plan and issuance of each building permit, the project applicantshall submit plans to the LAPD for review and approval for the purpose of incorporating safetymeasures in the project design, including the concept of crime prevention through environmentaldesign (i.e., building design, circulation, site planning, and lighting of parking structure and parkingareas).


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


B) Fire

We understand that the alley at the proposed project is 17.5 feet and is considered substandard. How is theFire department to access the building to the north or the back of this project if they cannot use the alleyfor their trucks?

RESPONSE:

As a condition of approval, the project must comply with all emergency access standards as set forth andrequired by the Los Angeles Fire Department. The Fire Department requires that fire lanes shall not beless than 20 feet clear to the sky. The project is required to widening the alley by 2.5 feet.


ENERGY CONSERVATION /WATER CONSERVATION

Does this project take into consideration the diminishing water resources of the L.A. basin and thecontinuing shortage of power sources?

RESPONSE:

In terms of the City’s overall water supply condition, the water requirement for any project which isconsistent with the City’s General Plan has been taken into account in the planned growth of the WaterSystem. Nevertheless, the project will be required to comply with all applicable water conservationordinances. The proposed project would receive electrical service from the Los Angeles Department ofWater and Power. Because the DWP was not subject to the divestiture requirements of deregulatedpower suppliers (such as the Southern California Edison Company), the City of Los Angeles has notexperienced the power shortages that have occurred elsewhere in the state.


SERVICE SYSTEMS (STORM DRAINAGE, SEWERS, SOLID WASTE AND DISPOSAL)

Doesn’t the City Sanitation Department require that commercial buildings provide facilities for separatingrecyclable items for all tenants?


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to the mitigation measures listed on pages IV.K-11 and IV.K-12 of the DEIR,which describe Conditions of Approval pertaining to solid waste disposal as required by the City of LosAngeles. Those measures are:

� The project applicant shall salvage or recycle construction and demolition debris, to themaximum extent feasible, during the construction phase.

� The applicant shall institute a recycling program to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator toreduce the volume of solid waste going to landfills in compliance with the City’s goal of a 50%reduction in the amount of waste going to landfills by the year 2,000.

� Recycling bins shall be provided at appropriate locations to promote recycling of paper, metal,glass, and other recyclable material.


COMMUNITY PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN and ZONING CONSISTENCY

TABLE IV. A-1

P.14. A-12

Objective 6 — How can this promote economic well being and public convenience when it adds similarretail uses to a currently high density retail area of the same kind of stores (i.e. restaurants and boutiques)?

RESPONSE:

The concentration of goods and services promotes economic well being by increasing competitionbetween retailers and service providers which, according to standard economic theory, should result inlower prices for the consumer. The same concentration of goods and services also promotes publicconvenience by providing a larger array of choices in a single geographic location. Economic well beingis further enhanced by the ensuing savings achieved through the reduction in the number of vehicle tripsrequired to take advantage of this concentration of goods and services, and the indirect savings fromreduced fuel consumption and air pollution.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


Objective 12 — Does adding a 3 story underground parking structure open from 6:00 am to 12:30 amreally support the reduction of crime?

RESPONSE:

The self contained parking structure will help to reduce crime in the neighborhood by providing a safeand secure environment for patron parking. There will be less late night walking on dark streets and lessopportunity for criminal encounters. Additionally, to the extent that there is valet parking, patrons will beable to wait for their cars in a safe environment. There will also be little opportunity for criminal accessto the vehicle parking area.


P.14. A-13

Objective 2-1: see question for objective 6

Policy 2-1.1: How does this add new commercial uses? It appears to duplicate existing business types.

RESPONSE:

With respect to Objective 2-1, the reader is referred to Response to Comment WRIGHTX-44.

The proposed project would result in “new” commercial uses, meaning commercial uses “in addition to”the existing commercial uses.


P. IVA—14

Policy 2-1.3: Further explanation of how this project enhances the quality and sustains compatibility withthe surrounding commercial area is needed.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Response to Comment WRIGHTX-44.


P.IV. A-15

Policy 2-3.3 see response to Policy 2-1.3

RESPONSE:

Policy 2-3.3 states: “Ensure that commercial projects achieve harmony with the best of existingdevelopment.” The commenter states (by reference to “response to Policy 2-1.3”) that in light of Policy2-3.3, further explanation of how the project enhances the quality and sustains compatibility with thesurrounding commercial area is needed. For a response to this concern, the reader is referred to Responseto Comment WRIGHTX-44.


P.IV. A-17

Policy 2-4.2 see response to Policy 2-1.3

RESPONSE:

Policy 2-4.2 states: “Preserve community character, scale and architecture diversity.” The commenterstates (by reference to “response to Policy 2-1.3”) that in light of policy 2-4.2, further explanation of howthe project enhances the quality and sustains compatibility with the surrounding commercial area isneeded. For a response to this concern, the reader is referred to Response to Comment WRIGHTX-44.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


P.IV. A-17

Why aren’t the conditions of the San Vicente Corridor Specific Plan discussed in detail in this table IV.A-1.

RESPONSE:

The San Vicente Corridor Specific Plan provides detailed standards related to ground floor frontage uses,signage, landscaping, setbacks, open space areas, sidewalks, and so forth. Generally, these are designissues that are determined at the site plan review stage. Such specific design information for the project isnot currently available.


CUMULATIVE IMPACTS: These are the cumulative impacts that cannot be mitigated.

A) Economic Impact.

What is the justification of this project from an economic standpoint? This project is designed for tenantswhose businesses will be in direct competition with numerous established businesses of the same orsimilar nature along San Vicente. Has the prospect that this project could cause loss of employment,lower revenues and possible business closures been addressed?

RESPONSE:

In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the DEIRfocuses on the project’s potential impacts on the physical environment. The DEIR does not addresseconomic and social effects. In general, the CEQA Guidelines provide that economic and social effects ofa project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment (Section 15131 (a)). However,when a clear nexus can be demonstrated between economic or social effects and physical effects on theenvironment (e.g., should the economic decline of the neighborhood caused by the project ultimately leadto blighted conditions) then such discussion of economic or social effects are to be addressed in the EIR.In the present instance, there is no evidence that any physical changes caused by the project will in turncause economic and social changes which lead to adverse physical changes. It has been suggested thatthrough competition this project could cause loss of employment, lower revenues and possible businessclosures. However, even assuming that some businesses might eventually downsize or close their


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

operations due to the presence of the proposed project, there is still no evidence that such actions wouldresult in a substantial adverse change in the environment. To the contrary, the general project area israpidly developing with new businesses and residences, and is considered a highly desirable portion of theWestside. Rather than the downsizing or closing of some businesses leading to blighted conditions (suchas empty and deteriorating buildings), a more likely outcome is the recycling of those properties to newer,more profitable uses (as has been the historic trend in this area). Such land use transition and new areadevelopment can be expected to improve both property values and maintenance of the physicalenvironment.


We are concerned that the DEIR does not address any local economic issues. Apparently the authors donot believe that such issues are appropriate for their EIR. We request that the Final EIR present materialand analysis regarding the following questions.

� What is the economic justification of 40,000 additional square feet of retail and restaurantuses in the San Vicente market. What are “demand” estimates for such uses?

RESPONSE:

As discussed in Response to Comment WRIGHTX-51, the State of California has determined that CEQAdoes not apply to local economic issues (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(c)). Issues of economicjustification and demand studies are outside the scope of this EIR. No further response is required.


� How many square feet of existing uses are there in Brentwood and what is the relative changegiven the size of this project?

RESPONSE:

CEQA does not apply to local economic issues. Refer to Response to Comment WRIGHTX-51.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


� What are the competitive retail areas for this project, their sizes, tenant mix and market areas?What is the expected tenant mix in this project?

RESPONSE:

While CEQA does not apply to local economic issues, the following are the competitive retail areas forthis project: Montana Avenue (17 blocks with boutiques, galleries, restaurants); San Vicente – Federal toBundy (boutiques, galleries, restaurants); Brentwood Village (boutiques, galleries, restaurants); andWestwood Village (boutiques, galleries, restaurants). See also to Response to Comment WRIGHTX-51.

The expected tenant mix is boutiques, restaurants, and office space.


� What is the impact on the existing retail community? Are the proposed uses competitive orcomplementary? Is their [sic] dilution of the current tenants and businesses?

RESPONSE:



� What is the impact on Brentwood Village retail area? To what extent does this projectcompete with Brentwood Village?

RESPONSE:



_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


� How many jobs are created by the project, and where will the labor come from. What impactwill the project have on the existing labor pool in the area?

RESPONSE:

Upon project completion, the combined employment provided by all of the various project components isestimated to be approximately 65 employees on the site at any given time. The kinds of labor force skillsrequired for the retail, restaurant, and office uses, proposed by the project are of the types that aretypically filled by workers and students who are already present in the local labor force. It is reasonableto expect, therefore, that the proposed project’s employees will be drawn from the local labor force andstudent population readily available in West Los Angeles, Brentwood, and surrounding communities.Neither the scale of the project, nor the labor force requirements of the project's uses, is anticipated toadversely affect the labor pool in the area.


� What is the multiplier effect of the project on other general business activity? What is themultiplier impact during the construction period?

RESPONSE:



� What is the Fiscal impact of the project in terms of sales tax, property tax, and other taxes?

RESPONSE:



_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


� What are the demographic trends in the area, and how do they correspond to the prospectivetenants and overall demand for this project?

RESPONSE:



Has the City appraised Gorham Avenue in terms of real estate value and in terms of use to theCommunity? In light of the economic advantage to the project, please justify the exchange of Gorham for4800 square feet of public plaza space.

RESPONSE:

CEQA requires the EIR to evaluate the physical impacts of the project on the environment. CEQA doesnot apply to economic issues, such as the appraised value of the portion of Gorham Avenue proposed forvacation (CEQA Guidelines §15131, Public Resources Code §21060.5).

This EIR presents the independent analysis and judgment of the City of Los Angeles with respect to thephysical impacts of the proposed project on the environment. It is not an advocacy document and not theappropriate venue for project justification. However, the benefits of the project that accrue to the publicinclude the following:

- 2,772 square feet of public plaza space;

- 5,908 square feet of additional publicly-accessible hardscape area at sidewalk grade;

- 2,295 square feet of additional landscaped area at sidewalk grade;

- 2,425 square feet of publicly-accessible hardscape area on the second floor;

- 3,350 square feet of outdoor restaurant space on the second floor;

- Approximately 8,400 square feet of open space over and above the 5,000 square feet requiredby requirements of the SVSCSP;


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

- 15 feet of property measured along Barrington from the alley north of Gorham Avenue to SanVicente Boulevard;

- 2 ½ feet of property along the alley;

- Elimination of the dangerous Gorham/Barrington intersection;

- Reconfiguration of the San Vicente/Gorham intersection;

- The widening of Barrington Avenue to create left and right hand turn lanes onto San Vicente;and

- Significant street improvements to substantially improve the traffic flow.


B) Traffic —

How can paying for ATCS systems regionally mitigate the impact of this project on the San VicenteCorridor?

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Response to Comment WRIGHTX-35 for a discussion of the traffic mitigationmeasures recommended in the DEIR, including the ATCS traffic signal upgrade. The ATCSimplementation area encompasses approximately 53 existing signalized intersections, including thesegment of San Vicente Boulevard from Wilshire Boulevard to Bundy Drive.


Local impact

There will be unmitigatable traffic impacts on Barrington Avenue, the intersection of Barrington and SanVicente and adjacent intersections. No realignment of the intersection of Gorham at San Vicente willeliminate the backup of traffic on San Vicente as traffic enters and leaves the project site. The one parking


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

lot entrance is poorly located causing major hazards to traffic both along San Vicente and into and out ofproperties adjacent to the Gorham/San Vicente intersection.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Response to Comment WRIGHTX-36 for a discussion of the traffic mitigationmeasures recommended in the DEIR, including the proposed realignment of the Gorham Avenue/SanVicente Boulevard intersection.


C) Impacts on adjacent properties

1. The multi-residential property to the north of the project will be affected by:

� Obstruction of view

� Light and glare

� Noise from the project buildings and possible safety and drainage problems due to theconditions of the substandard alley.

RESPONSE:

The DEIR examines the project’s effects on views at pages IV.L-13 through IV.L-19. The threshold ofsignificance criteria cited to evaluate the project included (but was not limited to) the following: loss of amajor public scenic view, or loss of a major open space resource. The project would be visible from thesouth facing windows of the multi-family residences to the north of the alley. The three-story height ofthe project, in comparison with the two-story buildings currently located on the project site, wouldincrease the visibility of the project from areas to the north of the site. Under existing conditions, someviews through and over the project site are possible from land uses to the north of the site. These viewswould be partially blocked by the increased height and mass of the project buildings.

Notwithstanding the above, the project’s impacts on the residences to the north are considered less thansignificant for the following reasons: 1) the project would not cause the loss of a major public scenicview, or loss of a major open space resource; 2) the project’s height and mass are consistent with existingzoning for the property, and with the height and floor area requirements of the San Vicente ScenicCorridor Specific Plan; and 3) the project’s height and mass would be consistent with existing structures


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

in the immediate surrounding area (such as the three story condominium development on the east side ofBarrington Avenue north of Gorham Avenue, or the western façade of the Brentwood Gardens shoppingcenter).

With respect to glare, the reader is referred to Response to Comment WRIGHTX-24.

With respect to noise, the reader is referred to Responses to Comments WRIGHTX-20 throughWRIGHTX-24.

With respect to alley related safety concerns, the reader is referred to Topical Response 9.

With respect to drainage concerns, the reader is referred to Responses to Comments WRIGHTX-10through WRIGHTX-14.


2. Whole Foods Market

� Drainage problems

� Increase of crime

� Loss of parking due to the inadequacy of project parking

RESPONSE:

With respect to Whole Foods Market drainage concerns, the reader is referred to Responses to CommentsWRIGHTX-10 and WRIGHTX-14.

The DEIR addresses project impacts on police services on pages IV.J-1 through IV.J-4. As discussed inthe DEIR at page IV.J-2, responses to thefts, vehicle burglaries, damage to vehicles, traffic-relatedincidents, and crimes against persons are anticipated to result from an increase in traffic on adjacentstreets and arterials and an increase in transient occupancy. However, according to the LAPD, currentpolice staffing levels are adequate to serve the project site, and no unique law enforcement problemswould result from the project’s development. The project’s impacts would be less than significant.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

The project’s proposed parking is not considered inadequate. As discussed in the DEIR on page IV.F.37,parking for the project would be provided within a multi-level subterranean parking structure projected tocontain approximately 275 parking spaces for employees and visitors, in accordance with the Los AngelesMunicipal Code (LAMC). Thus, no impacts related to parking at the project are anticipated.


3. USA Gas Station and Properties to the south of the Barrington/San Vicente intersection andGorham/San Vicente intersection.

� Access problems

� Increase in crime due to late hours of operation of project tenants

� Possible storm water flooding due to loss of Gorham street drainage channel and inadequateunderground storm drain capacity.

RESPONSE:

Access to the USA Gas Station and properties to the south of the Barrington/San Vicente intersection andGorham/San Vicente intersection would not be hindered by the proposed project. In fact with theimprovement of traffic conditions at the San Vicente/Barrington intersection, access to the USA GasStation may be improved.

With respect to crime, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment WRIGHTX-65.

It is unlikely that the proposed vacation and development of Gorham street would create drainageproblems for the USA Gas Station and other properties located to the east of the project site. Asdiscussed in the DEIR at pages IV.D-1 and 2, the project site drains to the south, not to the east. GorhamAvenue drains to the southwest, not to the east. Furthermore, the proposed project would not increase theamount of impervious surface within the project site, as the site is currently almost completely coveredwith impervious surfaces.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


We are concerned that this project may not conform to the Brentwood Pacific Palisades District Plan orthe San Vicente Corridor Specific Plan.

Thank you for allowing us to respond to the Draft EIR on the above-mentioned project. Please send alldocuments and notices of meetings on this project to:

Upper Mandeville Canyon Homeowners AssociationP.O. Box 49845Los Angeles, CA. 90049andNancy S. Cohen3744 Mandeville Canyon RoadLos Angeles, CA. 90049

RESPONSE:

As discussed in the DEIR on page IV.A-11, the proposed project is consistent with the intent of theobjectives identified in the Brentwood Pacific Palisades District Plan, the San Vicente Corridor SpecificPlan, Zoning, and Scenic Highway policies.

LETTER NO. BAGDONX

Tracy Bagdon11633 Gorham Avenue, #1Brentwood, CA 90049



_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

COMMENT NO. BAGDONX-1:

I live on Gorham Avenue in Brentwood right behind Brentwood Gardens. All I can say is NOOOOOOplease don’t build the commercialized shopping center at 11711 San Vicente Blvd. Not just because it’staking away from the character of the area but also because the parking in my area is already a nightmaredue to the traffic from the Brentwood Gardens. I park on the street every day and often can’t find parkingso that I can get to my own home. Even with validated garages, customers and staff are constantly parkingon my street (Gorham between Barrington and Bringham). I’ve often seen valet men running cars in myarea. It’s ridiculous. Unless you get permit parking for the street it will be nearly impossible for me topark. I know the city couldn’t care less about us people who live in that area, I know you only care aboutthe dollars and cents of it all, but have some compassion for those of us (and some that are much olderthan me) who come home with many bags in hand after a long day at work and can’t even find a place topark within 4 blocks of our own home.

RESPONSE:

The DEIR addresses the project’s aesthetic impacts in Section IV.L. On page IV.L-20 the DEIRconcludes that the aesthetic and view impacts resulting from the development of the proposed projectwould be less than significant.

Several commenters have raised concerns regarding the adequacy of the project’s proposed on-siteparking. Accordingly, a topical response has been prepared for these comments. The reader is referred toTopical Response 7.

LETTER NO. HOGANX

Diane Hogan725 S. Barrington Ave., Apt. 104Los Angeles, CA 90049-4565


COMMENT NO. HOGANX-1:

I am totally opposed to this development. The traffic on Barrington & San Vicente is already heavy.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE: Please see Response to Comment CLEMENSX-1.

LETTER NO. LIEBSTERX

Sol Liebster575 S. Barrington Ave., #213Los Angeles, CA 90049


COMMENT NO. LIEBSTERX-1

We are most upset by the proposed “Brentwood Park (sic) project for the following reasons:

I. TRAFFIC

A. By widening Barrington Ave. north of San Vicente Blvd., a tremendous bottleneck willoccur just north of this area where traffic currently is horrendous.

RESPONSE:

See Response to BEITLERX-7 for a discussion of the recommended traffic mitigation measure at theBarrington Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard intersection. As shown in the DEIR on Table IV.F-12,conditions at the Barrington Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard are anticipated to improve, and not degradewith implementation of the recommended traffic mitigation measures as compared to the forecastedfuture conditions without development of the proposed project.


B. As there is no provision for left turns eastbound on Montana Ave. onto Barrington Ave.,traffic currently is terrible. When you add northbound traffic from the project to thebottleneck above (A.) you will exacerbate. Some eastbound Montana traffic currently cutsthrough back alley (sic) behind the “project,” accessing onto Barrington Ave.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The analysis of potential project related traffic impacts at the intersection of Barrington Avenue andMontana Avenue is described in the DEIR in Section IV.F, Transportation/Circulation and summarizedon Table IV.F-11, page IV.F-35 of the DEIR. As shown, prior to consideration of mitigation measures,the project is forecasted to result in significant traffic impacts at the Barrington Avenue/Montana Avenueintersection. Table IV.F-12, page IV.F-40 of the DEIR indicates that with implementation of therecommended mitigation measures, the traffic impacts of the project are reduced to less than significantlevels. As noted on page IV.F-39 of the DEIR, the impacts of the project will be mitigated to less thansignificant levels at the Barrington Avenue/Montana Avenue intersection through implementation of theLADOT ATCS traffic signal upgrade.

See Topical Responses 9 and 10 for discussions of the utilization of the adjacent alley and proposed siteaccess configuration.


C. There is substantial traffic on the current Gorham street.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Topical Response 8 for a discussion of traffic conditions on Gorham Avenue andthe effects of the proposed street vacation.


D. Entrance to project on San Vicente will still cause major problems for cars coming fromfarther West making U-Turns. Present configuration changes of the island mayaccomodate (sic) only a few autos, cause back-up.

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment BEITLERX-9 for a discussion of the formulation of the project site accessscheme. Figure IV.F-5b, page IV.F-27 of the DEIR indicates that 60 vehicles in the PM peak hour areforecasted to turn left into the project site from San Vicente Boulevard. This is equivalent to one car perminute. Thus, the maximum queue of vehicles at waiting to turn left into the project site is not expected


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

to exceed two vehicles. By comparison, the left-turn pocket proposed for left-turns and u-turns fromeastbound San Vicente Boulevard can accommodate up to six cars. Therefore, the proposed pocket isexpected to be sufficient to accommodate vehicles turning left into the project site, as well as any vehiclesmaking u-turns.


E. Delivery vehicles will also cause huge problems. Alley entrance is also entrance forautos of neighbors on Montana Ave.

RESPONSE:

Delivery vehicles are not anticipated to cause alley access problems. As discussed in Topical Response 9,utilization of the alley for access by project service vehicles is appropriate and consistent with the accessscheme at other commercial developments in the project vicinity. The only trips generated by the projecton the alley are expected to be delivery vehicles. All other vehicles associated with the project will utilizethe project driveway located on San Vicente Boulevard west of Barrington Avenue. Therefore, thenumber of trips on the alley related to the project site with build-out of the proposed project is expected tobe same, if not somewhat less than existing conditions. Additionally, as stated in the DEIR (page III-10)the project is required to dedicate and improve the alley along the project frontage by 2.5 feet. Thisadditional width will improve operations for all vehicles that currently utilize the alley.


F. Planning for new residences in the area was not properly addressed. Is the area onlygoing to increase commercially?

RESPONSE:

The DEIR addresses the effects of the proposed project, a commercial development that does not includea residential component. Planning for new residences on other properties in the area is outside the scopeof the DEIR.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


II. Parking

A. Store employees alone will use up a large percentage of available spaces.

B. Overflow parking will use the streets spaces, or those of current stores, creating havoc.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Topical Response 7 for a discussion of issues related to parking at the project.Parking at the project will be provided in accordance with City Code requirements, which include parkinggenerated by employees. On page IV.F-37 of the DEIR, it is concluded that the project is not expected tosignificantly impact on-street parking due to the provision of adequate on-site parking.


III. Need

Brentwood doesn’t need more stores and restaurants.

RESPONSE:

The DEIR provides an assessment of the project’s physical effects on the environment. However, theperceived “need” for the project is an economic and/or social concern. CEQA does not apply to economicand social effects; thus, the need for the project is outside the scope of the DEIR. (CEQA Guidelines§15131, Public Resources Code §21060.5). No further response is required.


IV. Partiality

All presentations so far were created by the developers and were decidedly one sided.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

This EIR presents the independent analysis and judgment of the City of Los Angeles with respect to thephysical impacts of the proposed project on the environment. It is not an advocacy document. Thehearing is the appropriate venue for citizens to express their opinion as to whether the project should beapproved.


V. Construction

It is particularly hard to digest how all present stores and residents will not be adversly (sic)affected during construction. Program’s scope indicates that it will be a long time till completion.

RESPONSE:

The DEIR examines the effects of construction on the surrounding community. Construction-relatednoise impacts have been determined to be significant and unavoidable. All other construction-relatedimpacts, including air quality impacts, would be less than significant.


VI. Character of Neighborhood

There goes the charm of our area. Can uneeded (sic) “glitzy” stores and a waterfall replacepresent stores & charm?

RESPONSE:

The comment does not address the sufficiency of the DEIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15204.5(a)).Therefore, no further response is required.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


Finally, we were disappointed in the attitude of our Chamber of Commerce members, knowing thefeelings of most in the community. Have they accepted the project as “fact accompli,” just “stroking” uswith these meetings?

RESPONSE:

The comment does not address the sufficiency of the DEIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15204.5(a)).Therefore, no further response is required.

LETTER NO. GOLDSTEINX

Ms. Florence Goldstein11687 Montana Ave., Apt. 101Los Angeles, CA 90049-4833


COMMENT NO. GOLDSTEINX-1

On December 6, 2000, I attended a meeting which was called by the Brentwood Community Council fora presentation of a proposed Mall to be built at the corner of SAN VICENTE BOULEVARD ANDBARRINGTON AVENUE. This development would include Retail Shops, Restaurants and Office space.

For one full hour there were speakers, hired by the developer, one after the other, trying to convince theaudience of the benefits (?) of this development to the neighborhood.

No one would have known of this event if it were not for an article in the Brentwood News. Thispublication is a strictly local paper. Nothing like the L.A. Times. Yet the auditorium was filled withresidents, all of whom protested the construction. One after the other there were protests because of theincrease in traffic in an already heavily trafficked area, increase in noise, additional pollution andpotentially increased danger to pedestrations (sic). The overflow of cars could lead to Permit Parking.Where would our guests park?


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The DEIR addresses the project’s traffic generation at pages IV.F-1 through IV.F-41. A number ofmitigation measures are recommended to reduce the impact of the project’s additional traffic (see DEIRpages IV.F-38 through IV.F-41). Once in place, these mitigation measures would reduce the trafficimpacts of the proposed project on the surrounding street system to levels of insignificance. Not only areproject impacts mitigated to less than significant levels at all intersections with the implementation of therecommended measures, but future traffic conditions are expected to be better at most locations than if noproject were built, particularly during the critical PM peak hour. This indicates that the project mitigationpackage provides more capacity than is utilized by the proposed project. This results in improved trafficconditions in the study area.

Noise is addressed in the DEIR at pages IV.I-1 through IV.I-14. The DEIR determined that construction-related noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable. However, the noise level generated by theproject’s day to day operations would be less than significant. The DEIR noise analysis investigatednoise from project-generated traffic, outdoor seating, outdoor mechanical equipment, loading dockactivities, and on-site parking. In each instance, the analysis shows that long-term operational noiseimpacts would be less than significant.

The DEIR addresses air quality at pages IV.E-1 through IV.E-16. No significant air quality impacts havebeen identified. The analysis indicates that construction emissions from the proposed project would bebelow SCAQMD significance thresholds and thus would be less than significant. Additionally, theanalysis indicates that vehicle emissions from project generated traffic will not cause any SCAQMDregional significance threshold to be exceeded. Therefore, long-term regional air quality impacts wouldbe less than significant. Lastly, vehicle emissions from project generated traffic will not cause theexceedance of the microscale CO “hot spot” significance threshold at intersections in the Brentwood area.

With respect the pedestrians, the DEIR indicates that project traffic volumes are not anticipated to causeany significant impacts with residential or commercial pedestrian traffic in the project vicinity. In fact,with the development of the project, pedestrian safety would be enhanced by the redesign of the existingcrosswalks at San Vicente Boulevard and Gorham Avenue, which would reduce the points of conflictwith vehicular traffic.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


The plans call for replacing the existing 8,000 square feet of retail and reastaurant (sic) space with a54,700 square feet (sic) structure of 3 stories, 48 foot high commercial building. This would eliminateGorham Avenue from San Vicente Boulevard to Barrington Avenue. The street would be a free gift tothe developer - at who’s (sic) expense? A study made by the Planning Department Branch Offic: (sic)Environmental Review Section, 221 N. Figueroa St., Room 1500, Los Angeles, CA 90012, estimates anadditional (2,600) extra cars to be drawn daily to the proposed Mall. Yet the plans call for only 275parking spaces! Valet parking only, at that!

RESPONSE: With respect to the proposed street vacation, the commenter is referred to TopicalResponse 4. With respect to the adequacy of on-site parking, the commenter is referred to TopicalResponse 7.

With respect to valet parking, many people like valet parking for its convenience. It eliminates the needto search for a parking space, saves time, and gets you closer to your destination. Alternatively, parkingon such residential streets as Chenault Street is not an attractive alternative for many visitors to theBrentwood area. It is not particularly close to the business area and there is no sidewalk. Consequently,those who would park on Chenault Street must walk in the street. On balance, and given that streetparking is at a premium in the Brentwood area, it is anticipated that most visitors to the project will takeadvantage of the valet parking. The reader is also referred to Topical Response 7 for further discussionregarding the adequacy of the proposed parking.

With respect to the suggestion that the proposed street vacation would be a gift to the developer, thereader is referred to Response to Comment WRIGHTX-61. In particular, the valuation of GorhamAvenue is not an issue since it is not available for development or commercial sale; the City merely hasan easement for street purposes.

� Unless Gorham Avenue is incorporated into the proposed project, the street may not be used forany purpose other than street purposes as it is required for access to the parking lots of theexisting properties. Accordingly, Gorham Avenue has no commercial worth at all and thereforehas zero value.

� If the City decides it no longer needs Gorham Avenue for street purposes and accordingly vacatesthe street, the street reverts back to the parcels from which it was originally taken.

� Even if Gorham Avenue was available for development purposes (which it is not), theconfiguration of the site (i.e., not perpendicular to San Vicente) and the topography of the site(i.e., sloping, not flat), drastically reduce the value anyway.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

� Although approximately 14,000 square feet of Gorham Avenue is being vacated, approximately7,000 square feet of land is being dedicated to the City for street widening purposes (15 feet ofproperty along Barrington Avenue, 2 ½ feet of property along the alley, plus an amount sufficientfor a large radius turn at the corner of Barrington and San Vicente), resulting in a net gain of7,000 square feet (and not 14,000 square feet). Additionally, consideration must be given to thefact that the project is providing 13,400 square feet of open space, i.e., 8,400 square feet of openspace in excess of the 5,000 feet of open space required by the SVSCSP.

With respect to the height of the building, the proposed project will comply with all relevant codes. ItsFloor Area will be not more than 55,366 square feet in size (1.5 times 36, 910.63 square feet, as providedby code). Its height will be approximately 45 feet (excluding mechanical overruns), provided theapplicant obtains a variance from the present 40-foot limit for Commercial Corner developments. Theproject will also meet or exceed the code requirements for parking spaces and open space.


We who live here wish to maintain the present relaxed atmosphere that resembles a resort. The proposedMall will convert the area to an unwelcome business area.

RESPONSE: The project site is located in an existing business area. Brentwood Pacific PalisadesDistrict Plan designates the general area of the project site as Community Commercial (a designation forthe commercial portion of San Vicente Boulevard generally between Montana Avenue and WilshireBoulevard). The project is consistent with the existing commercial zoning for the subject property, and itis also consistent with the intent of the objectives identified in both the Brentwood Pacific PalisadesDistrict Plan and the San Vicente Scenic Corridor Specific Plan.

LETTER NO. DEEL-TALSKYX

Sandra Deel-TalskyNo Address Given



_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

COMMENT NO. DEEL-TALSKYX-1:

Once a City Street is vacated to any developer it can set a precedent that can serve as an example or ruleto be followed in subsequent acts of like and kind.

The only way this should ever be done should be done for the SOLE BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITYAND THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN THAT COMMUNITY and not to Developer at theCOMMUNITY’S EXPENSE.

RESPONSE:

It is not uncommon for the city to consider vacation of certain streets and alleys in conjunction with review ofa specific proposed project. There are more than 100 street vacation requests currently pending before the Cityof Los Angeles The reader is also referred to Topical Response 4.


Regardless of all the “traffic refinements and timed signals”, Brentwood Village will suffer a majorimpact of cars that WE CANNOT HANDLE. We have too much as it is and it will be worse when all thenew construction in the immediate area is completed. Impatient drivers will not want to wait for the lightsat Barrington and San Vicente and will use our alleyways that extend from Barrington to Montana Ave. inan effort to avoid the congestion as a ROADWAY. The Condominium Home Owners have enough of aproblem exiting and entering our garages as it is!

We also have the traffic from the Market, cars, as well as people walking and some with Children instrollers in that same alley. THIS IS A MAJOR SAFETY HAZARD! The Project loading zone is in animpossible place, not only causing more congestion, but will impact the Commercial Building parking forthe people that work there and thus cause more chaos in that alley.

RESPONSE:

It is unlikely that area traffic will use the east-west alley along the north side of the project site to avoidcongestion along Barrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. First, the proposed project includesimprovements at the Barrington Avenue/Vicente Boulevard intersection that will improve conditions atthat location. Specifically, the project is required to dedicate 15 feet of property along the project’sBarrington Avenue frontage and widen Barrington Avenue by 15 feet. The improvement allows for thesouthbound Barrington Avenue approach to the San Vicente Boulevard intersection to be restriped toprovide three lanes: one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane. Currently, the


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

southbound Barrington Avenue approach provides only one lane to accommodate all three movements.Second, the alley is not an attractive alternative - it has a relatively narrow travel way (15 feet wide) and ahigh number of driveways, temporarily parked vehicles, etc., all of which discourage the use of the alleyfor through traffic.

As discussed in Topical Response 9, access for delivery vehicles serving the project is proposed via thealley along the north edge of the project site. Utilization of the alley for access by project service vehiclesis appropriate and consistent with the access scheme at other commercial developments in the projectvicinity. The project’s loading zone is completely contained within the project site and the deliveryvehicles will not block the alley. Therefore, the deliveries to the proposed loading dock should create nosignificant impact on other users of the alley.

The only trips generated by the project on the alley are expected to be delivery vehicles. All othervehicles associated with the project will utilize the project driveway located on San Vicente Boulevardwest of Barrington Avenue. At the moment there are 12 parking spaces for the existing uses on the alley,which parking spaces will be relocated to the garage. Accordingly, the project will eliminate the trafficand congestion caused by the current users of these 12 parking spaces. Therefore, the number of trips onthe alley related to the project site with build-out of the proposed project is expected to be same, if notsomewhat less than existing conditions.


The Project’s hours of operation from early morning to the wee hours of the following morning with anOPEN DINING AREA is going to cause intolerable noise levels 7 days a week and disturb the QUIETENJOYMENT of all the residents in the area. Many people have not taken into consideration that due toall the congestion, many cars will use alternate routes such as Single Residential Streets above SanVicente to circumvent all the traffic.

RESPONSE:

The DEIR noise analysis examines a typical daily operation of the proposed project, and takes intoaccount business hours extending from 6:00 am to 12:30 am. The analysis includes noise sourcesassociated with the proposed project from auto traffic, the outdoor seating area, building mechanicalequipment, the parking structure, and the loading dock. The noise analysis includes the project-relatedauto traffic in and out of the parking structure from 10:00 pm to 1:00 am. A maximum increase of 2CNEL over the existing ambient noise can be expected due to the proposed project. This increase innoise level is not considered a significant noise impact. The commenter is also referred to Response toComment WRIGHTX-22.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

The analysis of potential project related traffic impacts are described in the DEIR in Section IV.F,Transportation/Circulation and are summarized on Table IV.F-11, page IV.F-35 of the DEIR. As shown,prior to consideration of mitigation measures, the project is forecasted to result in significant trafficimpacts at three intersections. Table IV.F-12, page IV.F-40 of the DEIR indicates that withimplementation of the recommended mitigation measures, the traffic impacts of the project are reduced toless than significant levels.

Figure IV.F-3, page IV.F-22 of the DEIR provides the forecasted percentage assignment of project trips atthe project driveway and adjacent study intersections. To provide a conservative assessment of potentialproject-related impacts, the traffic analysis assumes a portion of exiting project trips will utilize theGorham Avenue left-turn pocket for u-turns. It has also been assumed that a portion of exiting projecttrips will complete a u-turn further west at the Montana Avenue intersection and turn right around theblock via Montana Avenue and Barrington Avenue. However, project related trips are not anticipated touse single family residential streets north of San Vicente Boulevard for access, with the exception ofresidents who live in the area and choose to patronize the commercial uses at the site after project build-out.


Another important factor is that many people do NOT like to use Valet parking nor even pay for parking.This is going to take away Street Parking from the Residents and their Guests THAT IS DESPERATELYNEEDED! That would force PERMIT PARKING. I have lived in this Village since 1973 and havewatched the changes that have disrupted the charm of this lovely place. So-called “PROGRESS” isdifficult to stop, BUT NOW WE HAVE TO TAKE A STAND TO STOP THE FUTUREOVERDEVELOPEMENT (sic) OF OUR VILLAGE.

RESPONSE:

Many patrons prefer valet parking for its convenience. The project will provide valet parking to allpatrons at rates commensurate with the market rate in the surrounding area. Employees will park in thegarage or at a suitable alternative location, and all lessees in the project will be required as a term of theirlease to provide such parking to their employees. As to parking on such residential streets as ChenaultStreet, this is not an attractive alternative for many visitors to the Brentwood area. It is not particularlyclose to the business area and there is no sidewalk. Consequently, those who would park on ChenaultStreet must walk in the street. On balance, and given that street parking is at a premium in the Brentwoodarea, it is anticipated that most visitors to the project will take advantage of the valet parking. The readeris also referred to Topical Response 7 for further discussion regarding the adequacy of the proposedparking.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


It was stated at the Brentwood Council Meeting on Nov. 6th that the access on Gorham to San Vicentewas dangerous. They put a Light there approximately 3 years ago. Why?

The traffic getting off Barrington uses that, as it’s right turn. I use it every day and truthfully have found itnot only safer than crossing Barrington but quicker.

Another intersection that will cause a myriad disruption will be at Brigham to go east on San Vicente.Those Residents on the East of Barrington and many others will want to use this to avoid that potentialmess.

RESPONSE:

See Topical Response 8 for a discussion of the analysis of potential project related traffic impacts whichconsider the potential net new trips due to the proposed commercial development, as well as the reroutingof existing trips on the local street system as a result of the proposed closure of Gorham Avenue betweenBarrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. As shown in Tables IV.F-11 and IV.F-12, potentialproject related traffic impacts (i.e., due to the proposed project and the Gorham Avenue closure) areforecasted to be less than significant.

See Response to Comment KRISELX-3 for a discussion of traffic safety improvements provided by therecommended traffic mitigation measures.

As shown in DEIR Table IV.F-12, conditions at the Barrington Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard areanticipated to improve, and not degrade with implementation of the recommended traffic mitigationmeasures as compared to the forecasted pre-project conditions. Therefore, it is anticipated that theconstruction of the proposed project and implementation of the recommended mitigation measures willnot cause traffic to seek alternative travel routes on residential streets such as Brigham Avenue.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


We cannot stop a developer from improving his or her investment, BUT WE HAVE TO STOP THECLOSING OF GORHAM. That belongs to the city and the people and we are of that city and pay taxes tosupport the city and it’s employees.

PRESERVE BRENTWOOD VILLAGE NOW.

RESPONSE:

The commenter has not expressed a comment regarding the sufficiency of the DEIR (CEQA GuidelinesSection 15204.5(a)). Therefore, no further response is required. The commenter is referred to TopicalResponse 1.

LETTER NO. GOLDENBERGX

Barbara Goldenberg12938 Evanston StreetLos Angeles, California 90049


COMMENT NO. GOLDENBERGX-1:

I am writing as a forty-two year resident of Brentwood to oppose the vacation of the public street Gorhambetween Barrington and San Vicente Boulevard in Brentwood.

In my opinion, vacation of a portion of Gorham for private development will be of no benefit whatsoeverto the Brentwood community, Traffic is already quite impossible. Two new restaurants and other retailestablishments will only exacerbate the problem. I have spoken to no one in Brentwood who really wantsanother mini-mall on San Vicente. We have enough. The character of the street will in no way beenhanced by another large structure and the traffic which it will attract


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The vacation of Gorham Avenue in conjunction with the other mitigation measures identified in the DEIRwill result in improved traffic conditions in the project area (see Topical Responses 8, 9, and 10). Thiswill be a benefit to the Brentwood community.

The enhancement of the street character is a subjective issue and not everyone will agree with the DEIR’saesthetic analysis (see pages IV.L-1 through IV.L-20). Notwithstanding this fact, the DEIR concludesthat the proposed project would be in character with existing land uses in the project vicinity and that thedevelopment pattern in the project vicinity is reflective of a long-tem transition from a low-scale area to ahigher density residential and commercial area. The project’s replacement of low-scale, two-story retailuses with medium-scale, three-story retail and restaurant uses would be consistent with this developmentpattern. Overall, the long-term aesthetic and visual impact of the project would be less than significant.


For a safer intersection at Barrington and Gorham, I believe the simple addition of 4-way stop signswould help a great deal. If DOT still insists that this portion of Gorham is too dangerous, why not create apublic park in this space?

RESPONSE:


See Topical Response 8 and Response to Comment KRISELX-3 for discussions of traffic safetyimprovements provided by the recommended traffic mitigation measures. Due to the close proximity ofthe Barrington Avenue/Gorham Avenue and Barrington Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard intersections, it isnot practical to install all-way stop signs at the Gorham Avenue intersection as it would potentially causevehicles on northbound Barrington Avenue to queue into the San Vicente Boulevard intersection. Also,the installation of all-way stop signs would significantly disrupt the flow of through traffic on BarringtonAvenue, which is a Secondary Highway on the City’s Master Highway Plan.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

With respect to the commenter’s suggestion that the corner should be made into a park, it should be notedthat the while a park is not part of the project description, the project will provide a public plaza ofapproximately 4,800 square feet, of which just under 3,000 square feet would be lawn area. The project isalso providing a water feature at the corner that consists of a series of pools that flow together.Furthermore, neither the City of Los Angeles nor any other public agency has made an offer to purchasethe property in order to create a public park there. Response to Comment MISCIKOWSKI-1 providesadditional discussion of the possible use of the corner as a public open space.


If the developer wishes to improve his property, as is his right, may I suggest that he confine hisdevelopment to the property where Woods Florist and PortaBello are now located, allowing the streetspace to be retained as a public asset for the benefit of the city and the Brentwood community.

RESPONSE:

The DEIR examines an alternative to the proposed project that would permit the same square footage ofbuildable space without the closure of Gorham Avenue. See Alternative 2 on pages VI-7 throughVI-10.The DEIR (page VI-10) includes the following summary of impacts created by this alternative:

The No Gorham Closure alternative would have similar impacts to the proposed project withrespect to all environmental issues, except transportation and circulation and biologicalresources, where the impacts of the alternative would be lower and aesthetics, where the impactsof the alternative would be higher than at the proposed project. With respect to transportationand circulation, the alternative would reduce impacts at Montana and Barrington, while, withrespect to biological resources, the alternative would remove fewer existing specimen trees thanwould the proposed project. With regard to aesthetics, the alternative would require someincrease in individual building heights within the project site, although the overall height ofbuildings within the alternative would not exceed that of the proposed project. In addition, thealternative would include less open space area for public plazas and gathering places than theproposed project and would not integrate the two components of the project site. This alternativewould not avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project with regard toconstruction noise.

The reader is also referred to Responses to Comments MISCIKOWSKIX-1 and MISCIKOWSKIX-2.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

LETTER NO. KRISELX

William Krisel568 Tigertail RoadLos Angeles, CA 90049


COMMENT NO. KRISELX-1:

background: I am a California Licensed architect (since 1950), A Calif. licensed landscape architect(since 1954), a past president of the Brentwood Homeowners’ Association (BHA) and a resident ofBrentwood for the past 45 years (568 Tigertail Rd.).

I wish to comment, question, correct the record, and make suggestions regarding the subject E.I.R.prepared for this proposed project.

QUESTIONS

1. Why shouldn’t the developer be required to remove the existing overhead power poles andreplace the service by underground?

RESPONSE:

A preliminary investigation of the under-grounding of utilities conducted by the DWP indicates that theutilities in front of the project site could not be under-grounded alone, but only in conjunction with theunder-grounding of all utilities from the alley south of Montana to the alley south of Darlington. Theproject applicant has indicated its willingness to pay its proportionate cost of the under-grounding if theCity decides to underground all of the utilities.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


2. The proposed street reconfiguration is not pedestrian friendly since pedestrians crossing SanVicente @ Barrington and @ Gorham are required to use 2-signal-changes to accomplish thecrossing. Why isn’t this matter discussed in the E.I.R.?

RESPONSE:


San Vicente Boulevard in Brentwood is a unique thoroughfare in the City of Los Angeles. The streetright-of-way (130 feet wide) is larger than most major highways in the City, due mostly to the landscapedmedian which is approximately 38 feet in width at mid-block locations. The landscaped median isconsidered an asset to the Brentwood community and pedestrians can be observed walking among themedian’s Coral trees.

The signalized intersections along San Vicente Boulevard are timed such that two signal cycles aregenerally needed to cross the full width of the street. The two cycles are required due to the width of SanVicente Boulevard, as well as the acute angle of the intersecting cross streets, which add to the walkingdistance. If LADOT were to adjust the timing of the traffic signals to allow pedestrians to cross in asingle traffic signal cycle, the result would be less “green” time allocated to San Vicente Boulevard,thereby adversely affecting traffic flow on this street.

At the Barrington Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard intersection, the project mitigation measures will notadversely affect pedestrians crossing San Vicente Boulevard. The walking distance required to cross SanVicente Boulevard would only increase slightly due to the required improvements to the curb returns atthe northwest and southeast corners of the intersection. The curb return improvements, as well as theprovision for separate right-turn lanes on the northbound and southbound Barrington Avenue approachesto the intersection are expected to improve pedestrian safety by improving motorist visibility ofpedestrians crossing San Vicente Boulevard.

At the Gorham Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard intersection, pedestrian crossings are expected tosignificantly improve with implementation of the project mitigation measures. Currently, pedestrianscrossing San Vicente Boulevard at Gorham Avenue must walk a distance of approximately 250 feetbetween the northerly and southerly curblines. This extended distance is created by the severe angle at


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

which Gorham Avenue currently intersects San Vicente Boulevard. The lengthy crossing results in somepersons jaywalking (i.e., walking outside the designated crosswalks) across San Vicente Boulevard in thevicinity of Gorham Avenue. By comparison, the project mitigation measures outlined in the DEIRrecommend the closure of the north leg of Gorham Avenue and the realignment of the south leg tointersect San Vicente Boulevard at a more traditional right-angle. This reconfiguration will result in apedestrian crossing distance of just over 100 feet, a substantial reduction as compared to the currentcondition.


3. Why does the DOT insist on the vacation of Gorham, as the developer claims is the reason for hisrequest to vacate?

RESPONSE:

See Topical Response 8 for a discussion of the analysis of potential project related traffic impacts whichconsider the potential net new trips due to the proposed commercial development, as well as the reroutingof existing trips on the local street system as a result of the proposed closure of Gorham Avenue betweenBarrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. As shown in Tables IV.F-11 and IV.F-12, potentialproject related traffic impacts (i.e., due to the commercial project and the Gorham Avenue closure) areforecasted to be less than significant.


As discussed in Topical Response 8, the DEIR concludes that the retention of Gorham Avenue analyzedin Alternative 2 would result in traffic conditions that are less safe and more confusing as compared to theproject. This is primarily the result of the Barrington Avenue street dedication and wideningrequirements of LADOT as outlined in their letter. If Gorham Avenue were not closed, the tangentialcurbline separating the San Vicente Boulevard and Gorham Avenue intersections along the west side ofBarrington Avenue, (after implementation the project widening of Barrington Avenue by 15 feet, as wellas the improvements to the curb return radius at the northwest corner of the Barrington Avenue/SanVicente Boulevard intersection), would be completely eliminated (i.e., the intersections would be adjacentto each other). See Figure FEIR-2 in Section V, Corrections and Additions.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

While LADOT cannot “insist” on a street vacation as suggested by the commenter, the City can take stepsto severely restrict access to a street to eliminate potentially hazardous conditions to motorists andpedestrians. Thus, if Gorham Avenue were not closed as part of the project, it can be anticipated thatLADOT would, at a minimum, convert the section of Gorham Avenue between Barrington Avenue andSan Vicente Boulevard to a one-way westbound street. Further, movements onto the Gorham Avenuesegment would be restricted to right-turns only from southbound Barrington Avenue. In effect, GorhamAvenue would become an elongated right-turn lane from southbound Barrington Avenue to westboundSan Vicente Boulevard. This configuration presents even further problems due to vehicle-pedestrianconflicts as vehicles turn right from Barrington Avenue to Gorham Avenue, and right again from Gorhamto San Vicente Boulevard.

Thus, the closure of Gorham Avenue as part of the project is an opportunity, and not a constraint to trafficoperations and safety. The DEIR, and the LADOT letter, conclude that traffic conditions on BarringtonAvenue and San Vicente Boulevard will improve, and not degrade, as a result of the combination of theproposed commercial project, the closure of Gorham Avenue and the implementation of therecommended traffic mitigation measures.


4. The proposed “water feature” at the corner of San Vicent (sic) @ Barrington will behazard/danger to pedestrians as the corner is windy and the water will be blown onto the steepBarrington sidewalk, so why are the architects proposing a dangerous condition?

RESPONSE:

The water feature is a series of pools that flow together, not a fountain spurting water into the air. Thepool is at San Vicente grade level; Barrington is at a higher grade. Therefore, windy conditions at thecorner could not cause water to be blown out of the pool and up onto the Barrington Avenue sidewalk.The water feature was proposed by the community and by the Council Office, not by the architects.


5. Since every existing building fronting on San Vicente that has a public alley adjacent is requiredto exit through the alley, why was there no alternative scheme proposed using the alley as anentrance and/or exit to the on-site underground parking?


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

A description of the proposed site access configuration at the project is provided in the DEIR in SectionIII, Project Description and in Section IV.F, Transportation/Circulation. As discussed on page III-9,LADOT was consulted with respect to the site access scheme for the project. Further, LADOT statedtheir preliminary approval of the site access scheme in a letter dated July 26, 2000. As noted in theLADOT letter, final approval of the site access and internal circulation scheme is required by the Cityprior to the receipt of building permits for the project.

The commenter is incorrect in his statement that every existing building fronting on San VicenteBoulevard is required to exit vehicles onto the adjacent alley. Many commercial buildings along SanVicente Boulevard have site access schemes that allow both ingress and egress from the San VicenteBoulevard and the alley.

The project proposes to facilitate primary vehicle ingress and egress from San Vicente Boulevardopposite Gorham Avenue. Vehicular movements into and out of the project driveway on San VicenteBoulevard are proposed to be controlled and coordinated with the existing traffic signal located at theGorham Avenue intersection. Direct access to San Vicente Boulevard is preferred since it has greatercapacity to accommodate vehicle traffic as compared to the adjacent alley. The ability to controlmovements into and out of the project driveway with a traffic signal is unique as compared to othercommercial buildings along San Vicente Bouelvard, and will result in minimal disruption to the SanVicente Boulevard through traffic flow. The alley will be used for access to the project by servicevehicles, which will be at a substantially lower volume of traffic as compared to the San VicenteBoulevard driveway.

The commenter’s suggestion that project traffic should exit to the alley would result in substantialadditional traffic in the alley. Such a concept would be strongly opposed by the many residents that takeaccess to their apartment buildings from the alley. In contrast, the project design actually reduces alleytraffic (see Topical Response No. 9).


6. Why isn’t the developer required to get the approval signatures from each and every propertyowner (for the proposed vacation of Gorham) within tracts (Westgate, Blocks 23, 24, 27 & 28recorded in 1905) since the present Gorham Ave. was dedicated to the city and if it is to bevacated, it should revert back to the owners in those blocks of the Westgate Tract???


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

With regard to the reversion of Gorham Avenue, see Topical Response 4 (Procedures and Standards forStreet Vacations).


SUGGESTIONS

1. Widen existing alley (@ N. side from Barrington to the W prop. line of the site) to approx. 50 feetwide (Alley width to come from the developer) and blocked to through traffic at west end of thewidening to accommodate ingress, egress, loading, etc. to the proposed project with a right turnonly when exiting the alley onto Barrington going south only.

RESPONSE:

Putting the project entrance, exit and loading all onto the alley, ultimately puts all the traffic ontoBarrington Avenue, which would cause increased congestion on Barrington and exacerbate the trafficproblems that now exist at Gorham and Barrington. If the project has a right turn only when exiting thealley onto Barrington, those cars needing to go north on Barrington would have to turn right fromBarrington onto San Vicente, then right from San Vicente onto Montana, then left from Montana backonto Barrington north. This would greatly add to the traffic problems in the area.


2. If Gorham is vacated, limit the project to 48,250 sq.ft., 40 feet in height, 300 cars on-site parkingspaces, 12,500 sq.ft. of public space improved and maintained by the developer on the front sideof the project along San Vicente and limit the exit from the on-site parking only on to the alley tothe north.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The proposed project will comply with all relevant codes. Its Floor Area will be not more than 55,366square feet in size (1.5 times 36, 910.63 square feet, as provided by code). Its height will beapproximately 45 feet (excluding mechanical overruns), provided the applicant obtains a variance fromthe present 40-foot limit for Commercial Corner developments. The project will also meet or exceed thecode requirements for parking spaces and open space. With respect to the suggestion that all site parkingshould exit onto the alley, the reader is referred to Responses to Comments KRISELX-5 and KRISELX-7.


OTHER COMMENTS

1. The proposed vehicular traffic going north (across San Vicente) from Gorham (S of S.V.) is amaze which is more confusing than any traffic configuration existing in Brentwood today. If thisis installed as shown/designed a nightmare of dangers and confusion will occur when cars areentering/exiting from the proposed project along with the cars from the existing market’s parkinglot exits.

RESPONSE:


The reconfiguration of the northbound Gorham Avenue approach to San Vicente Boulevard willsignificantly improve operations at this location. Motorists turning left from northbound Gorham Avenueto westbound San Vicente Boulevard will utilize a separate channelized lane in the median and will nolonger be opposed by oncoming southbound Gorham Avenue traffic. Motorists turning right fromnorthbound Gorham to eastbound San Vicente will complete the turns at a right-angle as compared to thecurrent skewed angle, thus greatly improving sight distance at the intersection (which will benefit bothmotorists, as well as pedestrians crossing Gorham Avenue along the south side of San VicenteBoulevard).


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

Motorists seeking access to the project from northbound Gorham Avenue can access the new channelizedleft-turn lane in San Vicente Boulevard. The project driveway, (which will be located in the vicinity ofthe existing north leg of the Gorham Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard intersection), is proposed to beplaced under traffic signal control and coordinated with the traffic signal at the proposed realignedintersection of Gorham Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. This will allow project trips entering the siteto turn left with the benefit of a left-turn arrow, or complete a u-turn for traffic destined to the WholeFoods market driveways located west of the project site.


2. Proposed on-site parking

a. Comply with the latest code requirement for commercial projects having in-door and out-door dining facilities.

RESPONSE:

See Topical Response 7 for a discussion of parking provided at the project site. The project will provideparking in compliance with City Code requirements.


b. The square footage designated for out-door on site dining should have the same parkingrequirements as in doors since human beings eat in both places (LACMC 12.22A23).

RESPONSE:

See Topical Response 7 for a discussion of parking provided at the project site. The project will provideparking in compliance with City Code requirements.


c. The on site parking should include an additional 48 car spaces to replace the 48 on streetparking spaces eliminated by the changes to the existing streets (see attached Crain &Assoc. map showing existing on street parking).


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

See Topical Response 7 for a discussion of parking provided at the project site. See Response toComment MISCIKOWKIX-5 for a discussion of the on-street parking spaces to be removed by theproject, and for discussion of the conclusion that the project is not expected to significantly impact on-street parking due to the provision of adequate on-site parking.


d. Based upon the above the proposed 54,700 sq.ft. with 20% dining requires 5/1000 or 273cars plus the 49 cars eliminated on streets plus an additional 50 spaces for employeeparking totaling 371 on site parking spaces plus the sq.ft. area of outdoor dining neededin the real world.

RESPONSE:

See Topical Response 7 for a discussion of parking provided at the project site. The project will provideparking in compliance with City Code requirements, which includes a provision for employee parking.Code parking requirements applicable to the project are one space/500 square feet for office floor area,one space/250 square feet of retail floor area and one space/100 square feet of restaurant floor area. SeeResponse to Comment MISCIKOWSKIX-5 for a discussion of the on-street parking spaces to beremoved by the project. The removal of the three on-street parking spaces is not anticipated to create asignificant impact and are not required to be provided within the proposed on-site parking facilitydeveloped as part of the project.


e. The location of the proposed entrance/exit to the project will cause many dangers andproblems due to the adjacent existing market’s parking lots exits. This project should beentered and exited from a widened (50’) alley to the north. The grade difference of thealley/San Vicente (approx 10’) is not a difficult nor expensive design solution.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

With the project access configuration and implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in theDEIR, access to the Whole Foods market will improve (see Response to Comment BEITLERX-12).With respect to the suggestion that all site parking should exit onto the alley, the reader is referred toResponses to Comments KRISELX-5 and KRISELX-7.


f. The proposed closing of Gorham traffic would create a bad condition for those motoristsdriving west from Gorham (E of Barrington) trying to head south (left) and trying tomerge into the queing (sic) of sound bound Barrington wanting to right (west) turn ontoS.V. and wil (sic) then not be able to drive to the market or the two other commercialbuildings west of the market before Montana.

RESPONSE:

The analysis of potential project related traffic impacts at the intersection of Barrington Avenue andGorham Avenue are described in the DEIR in Section IV.F, Transportation/Circulation and aresummarized on Table IV.F-11, page IV.F-35 of the DEIR. The project impacts consider the potential netnew trips due to the proposed commercial development, as well as the rerouting of existing trips on thelocal street system as a result of the proposed closure of Gorham Avenue between Barrington Avenue andSan Vicente Boulevard. See pages IV.F-25 through IV.F-28 of the DEIR for a discussion of the GorhamAvenue closure traffic analysis.

As shown in Table IV.F-11, potential project related traffic impacts (i.e., due to the commercial projectand the Gorham Avenue closure) at the Barrington Avenue/Gorham Avenue intersection are forecasted tobe less than significant. In fact, an improvement of operations is forecasted at this location due to theconversion of the intersection from the existing four-leg configuration to a three-leg intersection. Theremoval of the westerly Gorham Avenue leg reduces the number of conflicting movements at theintersection, thereby improving overall traffic flow both on Barrington Avenue and Gorham Avenue.Thus, no impacts to access to existing commercial buildings are anticipated.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


ALTERNATIVE #1: states “would not accomplish any of the objectives of the proposed project“….QUESTION: whose objectives??? The developer?? Or the Brentwood community?? further “wouldlower all impacts except for Aesthetics” QUESTION: Who decided that the proposed project isaesthetically superior to the existing conditions?? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The great majorityof the Brentwood community would choose Alternative #1.

RESPONSE:

Alternative 1 would not accomplish the applicant’s objectives as presented in the DEIR on page III-2.The drafters of the DEIR, in conjunction with the thorough and independent review by the staff of the LosAngeles Department of City Planning, concluded the project would improve the appearance of the projectsite. The commenter is correct that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” The DEIR acknowledges thatvery point on page IV.L-13 where it notes that “since no empirical criteria exist with which to assessvisual impacts in urban areas, the assessment of such impacts is inherently subjective.”


ALTERNATIVE #2: states “could be developed to the maximum density permitted in the S.V.S.C.S.P.(FAR of 2.5/1 or 2.0/1 if 4-story not to exceed 48’). This is an incorrect interpretation of the code and theS.V.S.C.SP. The present C-1.5 zoning allows only a 1.5 FAR regardless of the closing or not closing ofGorham. The 1.5 FAR applied to the smaller site would allow 48,249 sq.ft. versus the proposed 54,700sq.ft. since the 12,400 sq.ft. of Gorham would not be allowed to count for FAR allowable.

RESPONSE:

The commenter is correct that the present C-1.5 zoning allows only a 1.5 FAR. The reader is referred toResponse to Comment KRISILOFFX-2 for further discussion regarding the formulation of AlternativeNo. 2.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


ALTERNATIVE #2 continued: states “Underground parking structures would need to be deeper”.ANSWER: So what, it’s done every day however it will cost the developer more. re Aesthetics as abenefit; again I say, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. re “Alternative would include less open spacearea for public plaza, etc.” ANSWER: This is not true since the San Vicente scenic corridor specific plan(S.V.S.C.S.P.) dictates the amount and location consequently this is not a drawback. re: “Sufficientparking on site”, this is dictated by codes as a minimum and neighborhood bargaining, nevertheless, codeminimum on site parking must be provided.

RESPONSE:

The DEIR described the project as requiring three levels of subterranean parking. (DEIR, p. III-4.) Asdiscussed in Response to Comment SCHMIDTX-17, in order to provide adequate circulation to ensurethe subterranean garage functions properly, the entire footprint of the proposed project, including GorhamAvenue, is required. For this and other reasons, the street vacation sought by the applicant will includethe subsurface. In order to develop Alternative No. 2, as proposed by the commenter, not only would itbe necessary to obtain the subsurface below Gorham Avenue, but it would also be necessary to demolishGorham Avenue and the corner building, build a subterranean garage in the configuration for theproposed project, and then rebuild Gorham Avenue and the corner building. Consequently, thealternative is not feasible.

With respect to aesthetics, the commenter is in agreement with the DEIR which states on page IV.L-12:“Since no empirical criteria exist with which to assess visual impacts in urban areas, the assessment ofsuch impacts is inherently subjective.

With respect to open space, the San Vicente Scenic Corridor Specific Plan establishes the minimumrequirements for open space. The project, however, proposes to provide more open space than requiredby the SVSCSP. For a comparison of the amount of open space required by the SVSCSP and the actualamount provided by the project, the reader is referred to Response to Comment KRISILOFFX-35.

As discussed in Topical Response 7, the project will provide parking on-site in accordance with the LosAngeles Municipal Code (LAMC). As currently proposed, the 275 parking spaces projected to becontained in the on-site underground parking structure are adequate to satisfy the LAMC parkingrequirements, which includes the anticipated parking generated by employees, visitors/patrons, andservice vehicles. Thus, no impacts related to parking at the project are anticipated.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


ALTERNATIVE #3: The reduced height/density scheme is a better scheme than the proposed project.

RESPONSE:

The DEIR concludes that the Reduced Height alternative would be environmentally superior to theproposed project (page VI-20). However, as the DEIR notes, this alternative would not eliminate orsubstantially lessen the significant unavoidable impact of the proposed project, related to constructionnoise. Further, the Reduced Height alternative would implement the project objectives but to a lesserdegree than the proposed project. While the cost of implementing the required mitigation would be thesame for this alternative and for the proposed project, the reduction in leaseable floor space of practically25 percent would reduce the project’s profit margin by a comparable level. The project applicant hasindicated that such a loss of profits would be considered unacceptable, and would not proceed with theproject under those conditions.


ALTERNATIVE #4: The alternative use (office) is a better scheme than the proposed project.

RESPONSE:

As discussed in the DEIR on page VI-17:

The Alternate Use alternative would implement only the project objective related to supportingthe policies and goals of the Brentwood Specific Plan that encourage pedestrian activity to accessthe land uses located along San Vicente Boulevard, because it would replace the 120-foot wide streetopening with a pedestrian sidewalk. The alternative would not implement the objectives of theproposed project to construct an integrated development, with high quality design features, whichprovides a variety of goods and services to residents and visitors to Brentwood and to provide publicplazas and other gathering places for residents and visitors to Brentwood.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


ALTERNATIVE #5: RE: “No alternative sites for the proposed project presently exist along SanVicente Blvd. answer; there are other sites on San Vicente Blvd. such as existing buildings which are notdeveloped to their full allowable potential the objectives of the proposed project is only for the profit ofthe developer and no benefit to the Brentwood community.

RESPONSE:

The proposed project is site-specific, in that the project site is owned by the project applicant who doesnot control other sites of suitable size in the immediate vicinity. Furthermore, the City of Los Angelescannot approve development at an alternative site within the context of this project; it can only deny orcondition the proposed project at the proposed site. A proposal to permit the project at any other sitewould require a separate discretionary action (with the consent of the owner of such a site), separatenotice and hearing, and separate environmental review (including a potential consideration of otheralternative sites).


In conclusion, at the Brentwood Community Council public meeting on this project held on November 6,2000 not a single person spoke in preference to the proposed project but ther (sic) were many, many localindividuals who spoke to object. The developer should not try to vacate Gorhan (sic): he should develophis site in accordance with the property entitlements and no more. This is the wrong (illconceived)project, on the wrong site at the wrong time. The street vacation and the other variances applied forshould be denied; the people of Brentwood have spoken.

RESPONSE:

With respect to the proposed vacation of Gorham Avenue, the reader is referred to Topical Response 4.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

LETTER NO. THRONEX

Marjorie and Malachi Throne11805 Mayfield Avenue, #306Los Angeles, California 90049


COMMENT NO. THRONEX-1:

We emphatically opposed the proposed Brentwood Park retail project, which would entail the closure ofGorham Avenue between San Vicente Boulevard and Barrington Avenue. There is sufficient retail andrestaurant business in Brentwood already; in fact, we are already very close to losing the villageatmosphere which first drew us to the area where we have lived for sixteen years.

We can see no benefit to the neighborhood in this proposed project — only benefit to the developer.Environmentally, it makes no sense: the traffic, which is already too heavy would become impossible. Wedo not want this project approved.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Response to Comment CLEMENSX-1, and Topical Response 7 through 10.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

LETTER NO. ASKLOFX

Linda Asklof10738 Barman AvenueCulver City, California


COMMENT NO. ASKLOFX-1:

I am a person who has worked in the same place in Brentwood near this intersection for over 30 years andhave watched this area grow and change into a wonderful mixture of business and residential. The recentburst of growth this year and apparently in the near future is going to turn this area into an overcrowded,undesirable place to be. Already, our customers have a difficult time getting to our parking lot or findingstreet parking after struggling to get through the ever increasing traffic congestion on San Vicente andadjacent streets. I, personally, will not shop where I know parking will be difficult; moving about this citytakes longer and longer and the frustration increases when trying to find parking. I live six miles south ofBrentwood and I must allow 30 minutes to get to work and find parking. It does not seem that the newbuildings being built will have enough parking to satisfy tenants or customers which will put more peopleseeking parking on surface streets. I also wonder where new employees of Brentwood Park will be able topark their cars; as it currently stands there aren’t even parking spots in office buildings on the Boulevardavailable for monthly rent. Over the years I have had to park as far away as Bundy on streets such asDarlington or May-field. I don’t mind walking, but with extra new people seeking parking, even Bundywill be unavailable. If the proposed 17-story building at Wilshire and Barrington is approved I won’t haveto worry about getting to work, because I won’t be able to cross the gridlocked intersection.

RESPONSE:

The analysis of potential project related traffic impacts are described in the DEIR in Section IV.F,Transportation/Circulation and are summarized on Table IV.F-11, page IV.F-35 of the DEIR. As shown,prior to consideration of mitigation measures, the project is forecasted to result in significant trafficimpacts at three intersections. Table IV.F-12, page IV.F-40 of the DEIR indicates that withimplementation of the recommended mitigation measures, the traffic impacts of the project are reduced toless than significant levels. The reader is also referred to Response to Comment CLEMENSX-1.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

As currently proposed, the 275 parking spaces projected to be contained in the on-site undergroundparking structure are adequate to satisfy the LAMC parking requirements, and includes the anticipatedparking generated by employees, visitors/patrons, and service vehicles. Thus, no impacts related toparking at the project are anticipated. For an additional discussion regarding parking, the reader isreferred to Topical Response 7.


Growth may be good for an area, but when the saturation point is reached and getting to and from an areabecomes harder and harder, people quit coming and business suffers. Perhaps a scaled-back project wouldbe more acceptable to local residents and would be assimilated easier into the neighborhood.

RESPONSE:

The DEIR examines a Reduced Height/Density alternative (see pages VI-11 through VI-14). Under thisalternative, the third level of Buildings One and Three would be removed, resulting in the elimination ofapproximately 13,400 square feet of retail/office uses from the proposed project, resulting in a projectwhich totals approximately 41,300 square feet. Gorham Avenue would be vacated under this alternative.As such, the FAR of the alternative would be reduced to approximately 1.0:1 compared to approximately1.48.1 for the proposed project.1 In order to maintain the economic viability of the project under thisalternative, more of the development would be concentrated at street level. Thus, portions of the projectdesignated for development with plazas and open space elements under the proposed project would bedeveloped with commercial uses under this alternative.


I realize that as a nonresident, my opinion probably does not count, but I spend almost as much of my lifehere as anywhere else and I would like to continue to enjoy the environment that is Brentwood. I wouldlike to see Brentwood continue to be the unique place that it has become.

1 It should be noted that the DEIR erroneously indicates that the project’s FAR is 1.31:1. The DEIR is herebyrevised to correct the FAR to 1.48:1 (see Corrections and Additions Nos. 11 through 13.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The commenter has expressed a preference concerning the proposed project, not a comment regarding thesufficiency of the DEIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15204.5(a)). Therefore, no further response isrequired. The commenter is referred to Topical Response 1.

LETTER NO. BOOTHX

Ethel Booth11687 Montana Avenue #209Los Angeles, California 90049


COMMENT NO. BOOTHX-1:

Almost exactly two years ago I sent the enclosed letter to your department expressing my extremeconcern about what it would be like for the Brentwood community if the proposed project for newconstruction at San Vicente and Barrington were to be approved. Since then I have thumbed through yourmeticulously compiled environmental draft report, read the summary and followed up by attending theNovember 6th meeting where there was a formal presentation by the developer and others.

I think it is safe to say that of the hundred or more residents who came out that evening despite almost nopublicity, all were troubled by what they had been shown by visual representation and been told byrepresentatives of the City Traffic division and the developer and his staff. Legitimate questions wereraised; not one could be answered to a resident’s satisfaction. Not one of the residents who spoke, andmore who couldn’t, offered even one word of encouragement to proponents of the project. Doesn’t thevoice of the community deserve consideration when such a major overhaul of the physical, social,environmental and esthetic features of their home territory is involved?

RESPONSE:

For responses to the attached letter, see Responses to Comments BOOTHX-6 through BOOTHX-8,below. The commenter has not made a comment regarding the sufficiency of the DEIR (CEQAGuidelines Section 15204.5(a)). While no further response is required, the commenter is referred toTopical Response 1, for a discussion of Section 15204.5 of the CEQA Guidelines which is intended to


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

help the public and public agencies to focus their review of environmental documents and their commentsto lead agencies.


Your report suggests that the one real negative was the noise to be generated by construction activities,characterizing those as “significant and unavoidable” for over two years. You seem to find every otherproblem within your limited, but still large area of investigation, as being “mitigated” in various mostlyunspecified ways. Yet the summary concludes that the proposed project would have a “potentiallynegative impact” on the PM peak hour level of service at the Intersection of Montana and Barrington.

RESPONSE:

The Summary on page I-3 of the DEIR distinguishes between impacts that can not be mitigated to a lessthan significant level (i.e., construction noise), from those impacts that can be reduced to a less thansignificant level by means of the proposed mitigation measures (i.e., traffic/circulation impacts). Whereappropriate, required or recommended mitigation measures are identified in the DEIR at the end of thediscussion of each environmental concern. It should also be noted that CEQA Guidelines Section15126.4(a)(3) provides that mitigation measures are not required for those impacts determined to be lessthan significant. For further reference, the reader is referred to Topical Response 2.


Living two houses from that corner at the Coral Tree condominiums, I can tell you that what I describedin my earlier letter has only grown worse. The line of cars approaching the Barrington - Montana Avenuelight from San Vicente often extends all the way back to San Vicente Boulevard and beyond. It becomesdangerous when impatient drivers get into the much shorter right lane, to avoid waiting to make a left turnat Barrington. They simply cross the avenue and make a quick left once beyond the light into the CoralTree driveway, followed by a quick U-turn to continue north on Barrington, A very serious safety risk isdoubly so when a car tries to leave the garage at the same time as the u-turn is being maneuvered. Thishas happened to me. At peak hours heavy traffic is also coming from the other direction and is difficult tosee when the car making the unexpected and probably illegal u-turn obstructs the resident’s view.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:



I respect the thoroughness with which you have done your job but what you can do or say is clearly onlypart of the story. The real story is that nobody but the developer and those who might directly benefitfinancially from changing the character of our area wants the project or any alternative proposal. We likeit the way it is, we have enough restaurants, nobody is asking for new stores - there are manyvacancies even now in surrounding developments - we can live without more outdoor eating andsocializing spaces and we don’t want the city to close and give away Gorham. A light there would benice. Some of the traffic improvements being considered should be a part of what the city would do, inany case, in due time. Maybe some good can come out of all of this: the city will fulfill its obligation forleft turn lights and other roadway improvements.

RESPONSE:


The recommended measures to mitigate significant traffic impacts due to the project are summarized inthe DEIR on pages IV.F-38 through IV.F-41. The traffic mitigation measures are also detailed in the July26, 2000 letter prepared by LADOT approving the traffic analysis prepared for the project that isincorporated into the DEIR (see Comment Letter TAMX).


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


I am sending copies of this correspondence to members of the City Council in the hope that reason willprevail over ill-considered new construction in the name of "improvement". Maybe somewhere else itwould be an improvement but not in Brentwood. Growth is inevitable, but this kind is unacceptable,uncalled for, and cannot be seen as an enhancement. Please!!!

We still have not lost confidence in the City Council and we hope they will listen to what we have to sayand consider how they would act, each in his own community. There’s a lesson in this for everyconstituency, not just Brentwood. People want to feel their representative listens when they speak,especially, as in this case, when it is almost with one voice.

RESPONSE:

The commenter has expressed an opinion concerning the proposed project and the political process, not acomment regarding the sufficiency of the DEIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15204.5(a)). Therefore, nofurther response is required. The commenter is referred to Topical Response 1.


COPY OF ETHEL BOOTH’S LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 12, 1998

I am strongly opposed to the proposed project.

The last thing the community needs is another mall.

The existing development, just the other side of Barrington and San Vicente, has rarely had all of itsrental spaces occupied – retail businesses come and go. They are not answering a real need or even amoderate demand but trying to create one. And the last thing we need is another restaurant. There are atleast 20 within easy walking distance.

RESPONSE:

The DEIR provides an assessment of the project’s physical effects on the environment. However, theperceived “need” for the project is an economic and/or social concern. CEQA does not apply to economicand social effects; thus, the perceived “need” for the project is outside the scope of the DEIR. (CEQAGuidelines §15131, Public Resources Code §21060.5). No further response is required.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


Traffic on Barrington and coming off Montana into Barrington is already at a very high level, especiallyduring peak hours. There are times when the one left-turn lane into Barrington stretches all the way backon Montana to San Vicente. What is being proposed is to make Barrington even more active by havingnew enterprises opening directly onto it in addition to the many facing San Vicente. Widening Barringtonat the crossing by a new turning lane will do little to remedy that situation.

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment BOOTHX-3 for a discussion of potential project traffic impacts at theintersection of Barrington Avenue and Montana Avenue. See Response to Comment BEITLERX-7 for adiscussion of the recommended project mitigation measure at the intersection of Barrington Avenue andSan Vicente Boulevard.


Those of us who live in Brentwood near this proposed improvement moved here because of the ambienceand the many conveniences. It is one of the few places left in Los Angeles that has the feel of a self-contained village. I can walk to my bank, the post office, the library, 2 markets, innumerable restaurants,all kinds of retail shops, 2 drugstores, the cleaners and a host of other amenities. We have enough!Nobody but an ambitious, over-reaching developer is interested in having more of the same, or evenanything new.

If there were a recognizable population in Brentwood, eager for all of this, I would feel I was a minorityand should keep still. But I am convinced all we would be getting is more of what we already haveenough of at the sacrifice of a stable, acceptable level of traffic congestion on Barrington. I can’t think ofa single other thing that I would like to see changed and nobody has been able to present evidence to thecontrary, so far as I know.

I would hate to see a 3-story building – we already have the equivalent of that on the east side ofBarrington – we do not need another. We already have plenty of retail outlets to satisfy thisneighborhood’s interests and we definitely do not need to demolish retail and restaurant spaces that haveserved the community well and replace them with others.

I vote no to the entire project and will do my best to see that you hear from more of your constituents inorder for their voices to be counted before a decision is made.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

Please see Response to Comment BOOTHX-6.

LETTER NO. ESHTERARDIX

S. Eshterardi11825 San Vicente BoulevardLos Angeles, CA 90049


COMMENT NO. ESHTERARDIX-1:

In regards to the new development on Barrington and San Vicente Blvd, I would like to know if this is ajoint venture with the City of Los Angeles and the Developers. The only way this should ever be doneshould be for the SOLE BENEFIT Of THE COMMUNITY and not to a DEVELOPER at theCOMMUNITIES (sic) EXPENSE.

RESPONSE:

The proposed project is not a joint venture with the City of Los Angeles and the developers. Severalcommenters have raised concerns regarding the appropriateness of the proposed vacation of GorhamAvenue. Accordingly, a topical response has been prepared for these comments. The reader is referred toTopical Response 4.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


Brentwood Village will suffer a major impact of cars that we cannot handle. We have too many cars as itis, and it will be getting worse due to all the construction that is going on right now. Impatient drivers willnot want to wait for the lights at Barrington and San Vicente and will use other ways by using thealleyway that extend from Barrington and Montana Ave. in an effort to avoid the congestion as aroadway. Ingress and Egress from Whole Foods already use the alleys which create a safety hazard likethe one between Bank of America and Longs Drug Store. We must consider the safety and welfare of oursmall community.

RESPONSE:

It is unlikely that area traffic will use the east-west alley along the north side of the project site to avoidcongestion along Barrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. First, the proposed project includesimprovements at the Barrington Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard intersection that will improve conditionsat that location. Specifically, the project is required to dedicate 15 feet of property along the project’sBarrington Avenue frontage and widen Barrington Avenue by 15 feet. The improvement allows for thesouthbound Barrington Avenue approach to the San Vicente Boulevard intersection to be restriped toprovide three lanes: one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane. Currently, thesouthbound Barrington Avenue approach provides only one lane to accommodate all three movements.Second, the alley is not an attractive alternative - it has a relatively narrow travel way (15 feet wide) and ahigh number of driveways, temporarily parked vehicles, etc., all of which discourage the use of the alleyfor through traffic.

As discussed in Topical Response 9, the only trips generated by the project on the alley are expected to bedelivery vehicles. All other vehicles associated with the project will utilize the project driveway locatedon San Vicente Boulevard west of Barrington Avenue. Therefore, the number of trips in the alley relatedto the project site with build-out of the proposed project is expected to be same, if not somewhat less thanexisting conditions.


Another intersection that will be disrupted is the turn from Brigham to go east on San Vicente. Theresidents that are on the East of Barrington and many others that want to avoid this potential mess will usethis.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

Figures IV.F-4a and IV.F-4b, pages IV.F-23 and IV.F-24 of the DEIR provide the forecasted net newproject related trips on San Vicente Boulevard in the vicinity of Brigham Avenue. The relatively smallnumber of net new trips added to San Vicente Boulevard at Brigham Avenue (15 trips or one trip forevery four minutes in the AM peak hour, and 57 trips or one trip every minute in the PM peak hour) is notanticipated to impact vehicles attempting left-turns from southbound Brigham Avenue to eastbound SanVicente Boulevard. Table IV.F-11, page IV.F-35 of the DEIR indicates that impacts due to the project atthe nearby signalized study intersection of San Vicente Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard are forecastedto be less than significant. Accordingly, impacts at the Brigham Avenue/San Vicente Boulevardintersection are also anticipated to be less than significant.


Ms. Miscikowski you have to start “LISTENING TO YOUR CONSTITUENTS” AND PROTECTWHAT WE HAVE LEFT OF THE CHARM AND QUAINTNESS OF OUR TOWN.

RESPONSE:


LETTER NO. FOXX

Gloria B. Fox11706 Montana Ave.Los Angeles, California



_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

COMMENT NO. FOXX-1:

Side Bar: Please consult Websters for a definition of Park.

1. The Alley behind this project is currently accessed by cars from Condos the length of theAlley. Trucks and vans servicing the project would create havoc for the current Alley traffic.

RESPONSE:

Several commenters have suggested that the project may contribute to congestion in the alley to the north.Accordingly, a topical response has been prepared for these comments. The reader is referred to TopicalResponse 9.

“Park” is the project’s name, not description.

COMMENT NO. FOXX-2:

2. The complete loss of Gorham to the Park Project presents access now managed safelyand conveniently, from Barrington to San Vicente. Why remove it? Who allowed this tohappen? (A greed need, perhaps?)

RESPONSE:

The project proposes to vacate only that portion of Gorham Avenue between Barrington Avenue and SanVicente Boulevard (180 feet). As discussed in the DEIR on page IV.F-41, not only are project impactsmitigated to less than significant levels at all intersections with the implementation of the recommendedmeasures, but future traffic conditions are expected to be better at most locations than if no project werebuilt, particularly during the critical PM peak hour. This indicates that the project mitigation packageprovides more capacity than is utilized by the proposed project. This results in improved trafficconditions in the study area.

The vacation request has not been approved by the City. The Commenter is referred to Topical Response4 for a discussion of the approval process for a requested street vacation.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

COMMENT NO. FOXX-3:

3. Obviously, another escalator/elevator 3 story edifice is not necessary or required. We alreadyhave a similar “mall” one block east of Barrington and San Vicente.

RESPONSE:

The “need” for the project is an economic and/or social concern. CEQA does not apply to economic andsocial effects; thus, the “need” for the project is outside the scope of the DEIR. (CEQA Guidelines§15131, Public Resources Code §21060.5). No further response is required.

COMMENT NO. FOXX-4:

4. Traffic, traffic, traffic! Consider additional cars to be housed in 3 or 4 Condos currentlybeing built in the Brentwood zone. We don’t need Park traffic added to that.

Count me against this Project.

RESPONSE:

With respect to other potential related projects in the Brentwood area, the reader is referred to TopicalResponse 6.

See Topical Response 8 for a discussion of the analysis of potential project related traffic impacts whichconsider the potential net new trips due to the proposed commercial development, as well as the reroutingof existing trips on the local street system as a result of the proposed closure of Gorham Avenue betweenBarrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. As shown in Tables IV.F-11 and IV.F-12, potentialproject related traffic impacts (i.e., due to the proposed project and the Gorham Avenue closure) areforecasted to be less than significant.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

LETTER NO. SACKHEIMX

Jacki Sackheim11706 Montana Ave., #206Los Angeles, CA 90049


COMMENT NO. SACKHEIMX-1:

I am writing to voice my concerns about the proposed project to be developed at 11711 San Vicente Blvd.I live at 11706 Montana and the only access to my building is through the alley. With the added traffic Iwill not be able to get in or out of my building. This could be considered a fire hazard.

RESPONSE:



Also, I am concerned about the noise, the dirt, the trucks and the traffic delays the project will cost. Notto mention the value of my property going down during and maybe even after the construction time.

RESPONSE:

For a response to a similar comment regarding noise, dust, and traffic, the reader is referred to Responseto Comment GOLDSTEINX-1. CEQA does not apply to economic and social effects; thus, the project’spossible effects on property values is outside the scope of the DEIR. (CEQA Guidelines §15131, PublicResources Code §21060.5). No further response is required.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


Please do not permit this project to go through. We here in Brentwood love our neighborhood the way itis. Keep our community, please!

RESPONSE: The commenter has not expressed a comment regarding the sufficiency of the DEIR(CEQA Guidelines Section 15204.5(a)). Therefore, no further response is required. The commenter isreferred to Topical Response 1.

LETTER NO. PRINGLEX

Mary K. Pringle, CPA11432 Waterford StreetLos Angeles, CA 90049


COMMENT NO. PRINGLEX-1:

This is to inform you that I strongly object to the construction of a new building at the corner ofBarrington and San Vicente in Brentwood. I believe that this new building will cause significantproblems related to increased traffic, noise, congestion, and create a danger to the existing residents. Thisarea is already so congested that you can easily sit through the light at this corner more than once in a(sic) effort to get through. Please consider the desires of the neighborhood when making this decision.

RESPONSE:

The DEIR addresses the project’s traffic generation at pages IV.F-1 through IV.F-41. A number ofmitigation measures are recommended to reduce the impact of the project’s additional traffic (see DEIRpages IV.F-38 through IV.F-41). Once in place, these mitigation measures would reduce the trafficimpacts of the proposed project on the surrounding street system to levels of insignificance. Not only areproject impacts mitigated to less than significant levels at all intersections with the implementation of therecommended measures, but future traffic conditions are expected to be better at most locations than if noproject were built, particularly during the critical PM peak hour. This indicates that the project mitigationpackage provides more capacity than is utilized by the proposed project. This results in improved trafficconditions in the study area.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

Noise is addressed in the DEIR at pages IV.I-1 through IV.I-14. The DEIR determined that construction-related noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable. However, the noise level generated by theproject’s day-to-day operations would be less than significant. The DEIR noise analysis investigatednoise from project-generated traffic, outdoor seating, outdoor mechanical equipment, loading dockactivities, and on-site parking. In each instance, the analysis shows that long-term operational noiseimpacts would be less than significant.

With respect the pedestrians, the DEIR indicates that project traffic volumes are not anticipated to causeany significant impacts with residential or commercial pedestrian traffic in the project vicinity. In fact,with the development of the project, pedestrian safety would be enhanced by the redesign of the existingcrosswalks at San Vicente Boulevard and Gorham Avenue, which would reduce the points of conflictwith vehicular traffic.

LETTER NO. ZAITLINX

Dr. and Mrs. Robert Zaitlin115 South Cliffwood AvenueLos Angeles, California 90049


COMMENT NO. ZAITLINX-1

The proposed development by Pacific equities [sic] on Gorham Ave. and San Vicente Blvd. Brentwood isan offence to this community. What was once a pleasant uncrowded, tranquil enclave has now becomeanother casualty of overcrowding and traffic snarles [sic]. All the amenities (eg. [sic] our coral treemedian) are being nibbled at in the selfish interest of developers and at the expense of residents.

RESPONSE:

The project proposes to add two coral trees to the San Vicente Boulevard median. No coral trees will beremoved or relocated due to the proposed project. The root structure of one or more trees may bemodified by the median modification, but the extent to which this will occur won’t be known until actualconstruction is started. This is typical with any street improvement project. Notwithstanding the above,there will be a net decrease in the area of the raised median of approximately 2,000 square feet, as theresult of the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

COMMENT NO. ZAITLINX-2

We are not in need of more malls or apartments or office space. It is apalling [sic] that the city facilitatesthis abomination by trading away a portion of Gorham Ave.

My wife and I and my neighbors seriously oppose this project.

RESPONSE:

The DEIR provides an assessment of the project’s physical effects on the environment. However, theperceived “need” for the project is an economic and/or social concern. CEQA does not apply to economicand social effects; thus, the need for the project is outside the scope of the DEIR. (CEQA Guidelines§15131, Public Resources Code §21060.5). No further response is required.

The City of Los Angeles has not determined whether to approve the vacation of Gorham Avenue.Nevertheless, the City has a legal responsibility to review and process the completed application for thestreet vacation. California Public Streets, Highways and Service Easements Vacation Law governs thevacation of public streets, highways and service easements (see Cal. Sts. & High. Code §§ 8300 et. seq.).For the proposed project, the approval process for the vacation request must follow the non-summaryprocedure, which is outlined in Topical Response 4.

LETTER NO. LESLIEX

Robert and Elizabeth Leslie815 Amherst AvenueLos Angeles, CA 90049



_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

COMMENT NO. LESLIEX-1:

We attended the Brentwood Community Council meeting on November 6, 2000 and listened to theelaborate presentation by Mr. Bryan Gordon to promote his project on Barrington and San Vicente he hasnamed “Brentwood Park’” Where is the Park??

This letter is to register our protest to the proposed project "Brentwood Park” in which Mr. Bryon (sic)Gordon intends to develop and include as a gift from the City of Brentwood a 15,000 square foot streetwhich belongs to the city. This street should never be taken away from the community by a unilateraldecision made by Councilman Marvin Braude in 1992.

If the city council of West Los Angeles for some obscure reason sees this street as a problem for the citynow, the allowing of a huge development on Mr. Gordons property (including this public street) whichhas already been determined by the EIR report to bring in an additional 2300 new visits by autos into thisproject per day, is preposterous. The loss of this street as a thoroughfare and the gridlock on Barringtonand San Vicente (which is intense without the development) will further reduce this area’s quality of life.Before any more development is approved in this Brentwood area parking, traffic and congestionproblems must be solved first.

Everyone is aware that property "rights" as they now exist on the lots owned by Mr. Gordon cannot betaken away from him. However the city should not facilitate further crowding and congestion of thisprecious small area by giving him a street belonging to the community.

We are commercial property owners in Brentwood. We feel that as a community we must come togetherto develop, build or not build, in this area for the good of the whole community, not with just selfishpersonal interests to develop what we have to the maximum with no thought to the future of Brentwood.

I have included a copy of an article in the Los Angeles Times which will illustrate what can and willhappen if development of an area exceeds what it can handle and the residents resort to having each newdevelopment be approved by a vote in an election. As a community I know that if this development of"Brentwood Park" was presented in the form of a ballot issue it would be soundly defeated by theresidents of the area.

Please reconsider and do not give this developer our precious street.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

Several commenters have raised concerns regarding the appropriateness of the proposed vacation ofGorham Avenue. Accordingly, a topical response has been prepared for these comments. The reader isreferred to Topical Response 4. It should also be noted that approval of the requested street vacationwould be based upon the non-summary procedure described in Topical Response 4 (including thepreparation of findings and a public hearing conducted by the City Council), and would not be the resultof “a unilateral decision made by Councilman Marvin Braude in 1992”. With respect to the trafficimpacts caused by the Gorham Avenue vacation, the reader is referred to Topical Response 8.

LETTER NO. FISHERX

Stephen FisherStephen Fisher Productions631 Lorna LaneLos Angeles, CA 90049


COMMENT NO. FISHERX-1:

I am writing on behalf of the neighbors on Lorna Lane, which is approximately three walking blocks fromthe proposed vacation of Gorham Street at San Vicente. Lorna Lane itself is a non-curbed cul-de-sac oneblock long which has a T-intersection with Chenault Street, also a narrow, non-curbed street. Those whohave chosen to live in this area have been attracted by its informal, rural nature, a look and feel whichonce characterized far more of this portion of Brentwood. These streets are among the nearest residentialstreets to San Vicente commercial development—a buffer zone, if you will, between Brentwoodcommerce and residential areas, so you can understand our great interest in the proposed Gorhamdevelopment.

The unamimous (sic) sentiment of people in this area is to question the suitability of the development asproposed. While the concerns of my neighbors are many, I will confine myself in this letter to issues Imyself have found upon reading the EIR and after having been present in the affected area for almost 60years. I must add that although I recently requested a copy of the EIR form (sic) your office, I have notyet received it.

The concerns outlined here concern five areas: 1. Illegal privatization of public land; 2. The lack of atrade-off or public rationale; 3. The EIR's lamentable memory loss; 4. Insufficient and non-existent traffic


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

flow considerations in the EIR; 5. Ignorance of basic regional aesthetic features in the EIR's viewshedsections.

RESPONSE:

Each of the commenter’s five concern area’s are discussed separately below.


1. My basic opposition to the plan, and I would guess the primary or secondary objection of everyone Ihave talked with, is that the vacation of Gorhan is a giveaway of a public easement for the benefit of acorporation, what was termed in the Old West, a “land grab.” While the EIR does not address the politicsand legalities of the transfer contemplated as the first option in the EIR, one can only think that the role ofgovernment is to preserve the public roadways of a city as a public trust--or in this specific casemaintaining a public easement--modifying this trust only when there is dire danger or when changeswould clearly bring great benefit (sic) the people of the city as a whole. I doubt either of these standards isbeing met by the proposed development. In point of fact, as the EIR demonstrates, the development canproceed without the vacation of Gorham. Such privatization of public use is not in keeping with goodgovernment, with fair play, or with the greater need of Los Angeles to create a city where public space ishonored. The vacation of Gorham is a crime against the people.

RESPONSE:

State law and the City’s own ordinances allow vacation of a public street and its dedication to private useif the City deems the vacation to be in the City’s interest, and if certain findings are made, most notablythat the street to be vacated is “unnecessary for present or prospective public use.” As the Draft EIRevidences, the vacation of this small portion of Gorham Ave. would serve numerous public purposes,most notably the elimination of traffic and pedestrian hazards associated with its irregular approach toSan Vicente Boulevard. Moreover, while there would no longer be through traffic on Gorham, trafficcongestion in the vicinity would actually be reduced due to a more logical traffic pattern and substantialtraffic improvements funded by the project applicant. (DEIR, pp. 25, 28, 36-41.)

The reader is also referred to Topical Response 4 for a detailed discussion of the street vacation process.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


2. The so-called trade-off: I was not totally clear on reading the EIR whether the plan called for a plazaspace of 4,800 or 2,688 square feet. In any event, I estimate the square footage of the Gorham segment inquestion to be 13,000 or more square feet. Not a good deal for the people! (The "plaza" would be abouthalf the square footage of an average residential lot on our street!) How many millions is that worth to thedeveloper?

RESPONSE:

The size of the proposed plaza is approximately 2,772 square feet. In addition, the project will provide atotal of approximately 10,638 square feet of publicly accessible hardscaped and landscaped areas atsidewalk grade and on the second floor, for a total of approximately 13,400 square feet of publiclyaccessible open space. The size of the proposed Gorham Avenue vacation is 14,000 square feet. Takinginto consideration both the Gorham Avenue vacation and the various required street dedications, theproject site will actually experience a net area reduction of 4,000 square feet (the reader is referred toResponses to Comments DITLOWX-1). The value of the street vacation to the developer is an economicissue. CEQA does not apply to economic effects; thus, the value of street vacation is outside the scope ofthe DEIR. (CEQA Guidelines §15131, Public Resources Code §21060.5). No further response isrequired.


But equally important, the “public” area is shown in the design to be in fact a food court, not particulary(sic) large at that, and under the control of the development owners and managers, and for the benefit ofthe up to 25% of development space to be allocated for restaurants. Similar malls exist around the cityand they are not in any way “public” spaces, nor particularly hospitiable (sic) for a lot of people, and toosmall for any significant public use. The architect’s renderings present the development as a thoroughlycommercial enterprise. I doubt many art fairs, farmer markets, or political rallies will be permitted by thedeveloper in his food court! More likely that the project’s enterprises will spill over onto publicsidewalks. In addition, what we do not need on San Vicente--at least in order to fulfill the vision of theSan Vicente Scenic Corridor and Specific Plan to have enjoyable pedestrian experiences -- are more autoentrances and exits on the boulevard!


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The public plaza of approximately 4,800 square feet will not be a food court, nor will any tenants,whether food, retail or otherwise, be permitted to utilize this area. Tenants of the project may utilize otheropen areas, particularly on the second level. The public plaza will be under the control of the owners andmanagers of the project, and will be utilized for cultural and community events, as well as for theenjoyment of the residents of Brentwood.


The developer proposes some traffic mitigation measures. With increasing volumes of traffic in the area,it is doubtful in our opinion that little fixes within the traffic flow system will do much to improve things,and certainly will not offset the added traffic for the development. In any case, such fixes are more mini-experiments, and do not justify giving up public space to private development. The trade-off is acutally(sic) a rip-off.

RESPONSE:

The analysis of potential project related traffic impacts are described in the DEIR in Section IV.F,Transportation/Circulation and summarized on Table IV.F-11, page IV.F-35 of the DEIR. As shown,prior to consideration of mitigation measures, the project is forecasted to result in significant trafficimpacts at three intersections. The recommended traffic mitigation measures are described in the DEIRon pages IV.F-38 through IV.F-41. Table IV.F-12, page IV.F-40 of the DEIR indicates that withimplementation of the recommended mitigation measures, the traffic impacts of the project are reduced toless than significant levels. The July 26, 2000 LADOT letter also provides a summary of the projecttraffic impacts and recommended mitigation measures (see Comment Letter TAMX).


3. Lack of an historical perspective: The EIR is not required to consider historical factors, which I feelgreatly skews the document and deprives the document of any objectivity or inclusiveness. For instance,the history of viewshed loss in the area--which has been progressive and considerable--is not dealt with;the history of mixed-use loss in the area is not dealt with (we have lost hardware stores, used bookshops,and countless other useful-to-residents small-but-essential businesses). With some 30 restaurants in the


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

area (not to mention nearby Wilshire Blvd.) we certainly do not need more restaurants, and mostdefinitely not at the expense of public space and transportation use!! Already, local small business ownersare contemplating moving as rents rise; what a tragedy, Westwood is imminent!

RESPONSE:

The commenter is correct that the EIR is not required to consider historical factors. CEQA GuidelinesSection 15125(a) provides that:

An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of theproject, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice ofpreparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local andregional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physicalconditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant…

The past loss of previous land uses is unrelated to the proposed project and therefore is outside of thescope of this EIR, which is focused on the physical effects of the proposed project. The perceived “need”for the project is an economic and/or social concern. CEQA does not apply to economic and socialeffects; thus, the perceived “need” for the project is also outside the scope of the DEIR. (CEQAGuidelines §15131, Public Resources Code §21060.5). No further response is required.


Most importantly, there is no evaluation of previous EIR’s and building plans to see if actual goals weremet. For instance, Soup Plantation and nearby office parking is so insufficient that employees andcustomers park on our street for 5, 6, and 10 hours at a time--and we are a good three blocks from SoupPlantation! The number of cars overflowing the Barrington Apartment parking areas is now in thehundreds each night.

RESPONSE:

The evaluation of previous EIRs and building plans is outside of the scope of this EIR, which is focusedon the physical effects of the proposed project. Please see Response to Comment FISHERX-7.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


Lorna Lane and Chenault, once rural in feel, have become the parking lots of Brentwood, and at whoseexpense?

The result on our one block cul-de-sac and nearby Chenault is a constant procession of cars doing U-turnsinto our driveways at night, leaving grease trails on our asphalt; blasting us with car alarms at night;trashing our streets, speeding making the street unsafe for kids, illegally obscuring traffic visibility, andblocking front door access, trash pick-up, and frontyard gardening.

RESPONSE:

The problems enumerated by the commenter are existing problems common throughout the greater LosAngeles area. They are not caused by the proposed project. They are, therefore, outside the scope of thisEIR. However, by definition, any driver who enters a cul-de-sac must turn around. This is true for allcul-de-sacs and is unrelated to the commenter’s location in Brentwood. For an additional discussion ofLorna Lane and Chenault Street, the commenter is referred to Responses to Comments FARMYX-1through FARMYX-3.


Things change; we learn from past mistakes. Without some historical sense of change and loss in the area,the EIR presumes to exist in some timeless state, which renders the EIR highly unconvincing. We arecreatures of time and history as well as place; adequate systems thinking must take this into consideration.

RESPONSE:

The DEIR for the proposed project was prepared in compliance with the requirements of the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA). As discussed in Response to Comment FISHERX-6, the Act doesnot provide for the inclusion of the historical perspective suggested by the commenter. Instead, CEQAestablishes that EIR’s should provide a baseline of existing conditions against which the changes causedby the project may be measured. The commenter may present the historical perspective directly to thedecision makers; however, such information is outside the scope of the EIR.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


4. Traffic flow. Somehow, the statistics about traffic flow do not match the reality we see out on thestreets. The increases on Barrington are astounding; many residents no longer try to turn left fromChenault onto Barrington, and this has happend (sic) in just the last few years. But traffic has increasedthroughout the area due to increases in domestic workers, both in homes and restaurants, more apartmentunits, bigger schools, younger families with kids who do more local trips, more young poeple (sic)bunking in with each other in the Barrington apartments-realities which the EIR for the most part ignored,and which may be exacerbated by an economic downturn. Who says 1% annual traffic increases are evenrelevant to the area?

RESPONSE:

The increased traffic reported by the commenter has been taken into consideration by the DEIR’s trafficanalysis in the form of existing traffic counts. As discussed in the DEIR on page IV.F-10, an annualtraffic growth factor of 1.0 percent was selected by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation(LADOT) as an approximate traffic growth factor for the project vicinity, based on an analysis of thetrends in traffic growth in the Los Angeles area over the last several years.


Chenault, Westgate, and Lorna Lane, although within several blocks of the proposed development werenot factored into the EIR in any significant way. How can this be? Are we in the same world? Already,Lorna Lane is a free parking lot for people patronizing San Vicente businesses--I often see two carscoming up the street, and one vehicle is parked, while the other takes both parties to their shoppingdestination. Our front yard is more littered with trash from San Vicente businesses than at any time in thepast 60 years, if not 100 years. Obviously, this will increase as development proceeds. The number of carson Chenault, both parked illegally and speeding is growing each year, until all the residents areconcerned.

RESPONSE:

As stated on page 1 of Appendix E of the DEIR, the DEIR traffic analysis of the 11 intersections wasprepared based on the request from the Los Angeles Department of Transportation. Project related tripsare not anticipated to use single family residential streets for access, with the exception of residents wholive in the area and choose to patronize the commercial uses at the site after project build-out. LADOThas reviewed the traffic study prepared for the project and issued a letter dated July 26, 2000 (seeComment Letter TAMX) stating its concurrence with the analysis procedures, findings and conclusions of


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

the traffic analysis. LADOT has also issued a follow-up letter dated December 1, 2000 (see alsoComment Letter TAMX) stating that they had no additional comments beyond those made in the July 26,2000 letter.

With respect to Chenault, Westgate, and Lorna Lane, the conditions the commenter has mentioned areexisting conditions not caused by the project. However, the conditions described by the commenter werenot evident during the site inspection conducted on January 17, 2001 (see Response to CommentFARMYX-2). See Topical Response 7 for a discussion of parking provided at the project site. Theproject will provide parking in compliance with City Code requirements. Therefore, it is concluded thatthe project will provide a sufficient number of parking spaces to accommodate all anticipated employeeand visitor parking demand on-site, without a significant impact to the surrounding community.


Chenault and Lorna Lane are pedestrian streets—there are more kids now on these streets than in the lastfew decades. HOW COULD THE NEEDS OF THESE STREETS BE IGNORED? CONTINUE TODESTROY THE CHARACTER OF THIS BUFFER ZONE AND YOU CUT INTO THE FABRIC OFBRENTWOOD ITSELF!

RESPONSE:

Please see Response to Comment FISHERX-11.


Again, the EIR is imcomplete (sic) and invalid without looking at history--there are now so many carentrance ways along San Vicente west of Westgate (Soup Plantation has three, Long’s has two) and thedrivers so frantic that PEDESTRIAN USE is nerve-wracking, and now we think twice about walking toVicente Foods. Until recent development this was never a consideration. I do not feel the design ispedestrian friendly, more like a fortress with harried drivers crossing the sidewalk drawbridge. The sadtruth remains that the residents find ourselves walking less due to safety concerns.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The project will make the area more pedestrian friendly by increasing the sidewalk area and decreasingthe driveway area. The area converted to sidewalk is 40 feet at the Gorham/Barrington intersection and110 feet at the Gorham/San Vicente intersection, for a total of 150 feet more sidewalk. The areaconverted from sidewalk to driveway is 20 feet. Accordingly, there is actually a net increase of 130 feetmore sidewalk around the perimeter of the project than exists at present. The project also eliminates thelong diagonal crossing of San Vicente Boulevard, increasing pedestrian ease-of-use and enhancingpedestrian safety. The reader is also referred to Responses to Comments KRISELX-2 and KRISELX-3,and Response to Comment WRIGHTX-35.


Whatever the EIR states, the feeling among residents is that traffic is increasing at unacceptable ratesthroughout Brentwood, and that little fixes will do nothing to stem it, and that new devleopment (sic) willonly bring problems to a crisis stage--simply in my walks in the past couple of years I have seen over ahalf-dozen fatal, critical, and minor accidents on Westgate, Lorna Lane, Chenault, and Barrington, allwithin two blocks of our home! The city refused the request of the residents to even post a speed limitsign on Chenault!

RESPONSE:

The commenter is referred to Topical Response 6 for a discussion of the methodology used in the DEIRtraffic analysis for forecasting future traffic on the local street system. See Response to CommentFISHERX-5 for a discussion of the project traffic mitigation measures. Project related trips are notanticipated to use single family residential streets for access, with the exception of residents who live inthe area and choose to patronize the commercial uses at the site after project build-out.

As shown in DEIR Table IV.F-11, potential project related traffic impacts (i.e., due to the commercialproject and the Gorham Avenue closure) at the Barrington Avenue/Gorham Avenue intersection areforecasted to be less than significant. In fact, an improvement of operations is forecasted at this locationdue to the conversion of the intersection from the existing four-leg configuration to a three-legintersection. The removal of the westerly Gorham Avenue leg reduces the number of conflictingmovements at the intersection, thereby improving overall traffic flow both on Barrington Avenue andGorham Avenue.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


5. VIEWSHED AND HISTORY. This is one of the most outrageous and deficient aspects of the EIR.Someone was out there on Gorham with a camera, and somehow missed the most beautiful views (Iwonder why), and in general the EIR failed to even touch on the urban design values of the currentrouting of Gorham.

RESPONSE:

On Figures IV.L-1 through IV.L-8, the DEIR provides 16 views of the project site and the surroundingcommunity. By clearly depicting the existing conditions, these photographs help the reader understandthe visual context of the proposed project. Particularly for those readers not intimately familiar with theproject area, the photographs document critical elements of the visual landscape of this portion ofBrentwood. They show such aspects of the community as the massing and various architectural styles ofadjacent buildings, street landscaping, streetscape views along the San Vicente corridor, the variety ofland uses in the area, roadway configurations, overhead utility lines, and points of access. While anotherphotographer may have taken other views, the photographs in the DEIR clearly illuminate the existingvisual and aesthetic conditions discussed in the text on pages IV.L-1 through IV.L-20.


Gorham is the last remaining northeast trending street in the area from which one may glimpse a view ofthe cumulus clouds massing up against the San Gabriels, an archtypal (sic) Los Angeles view. From southof San Vicente, one has an unobstructed view straight off into infinity; it is an exhilarating view, to betreasured and preserved.

Gorham is an urban design ecotone, a meeting place of the foothill curvilinear streets such as Barringtonand the flatland grid pattern, well-established by the 1920’s. These patterns were to some extent dictatedby topography, and to some extent by dreams and developer needs; the homes were a little finer in thefoothills, and the flatlands of the Westside were used for more middle class develpment (sic) (althoughjust south of San Vicente was shacks in the 1940’s).

Gorham, like Montana and Westgate, doesn’t quite fit; these streets take up the geometric slack inmatching two opposing street systems. Gorham is like an artistic quirk: it is odd, peculiar, and thusmemorable and distinctive. It, along with the Westgate and Montana intersection gives flavor andcharacter to the area. Once we lose the elegant design of streets such as Gorham the uniqueness of thearea will never be regained. This little street relieves a grid pattern--in a sense it nobly fights back at thegrid pattern.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

And in so doing it sticks indelibly in the memory of the residents here. It is feature which helps usremember where we are and who we have been. In (sic) gives some coherence to our urban experience.Like Mona Lisa’s smile, it stands out and helps make this Brentwood commercial strip distinctive.

As a quirk, as an aid to urban memory, it is to be possessed by all the people, by many generations. Iwalked it with my mother in the early 1940's when we went just east of Barrington (and down the hill) tothe Montana and Gorham farms to feed the horses sugar; 1 crossed it when I went in the 1950’s to visitmy grandmother and read Robert Frost at her apartment on San Vicente where Brentwood Gardens standstoday; now I use it both on foot and in the car when I visit businesses across San Vicente. It is whereLAPD detained my father (a retired 70-year old banker at the time) as he walked down Barrington tomake repairs at some apartments he managed. The reason? Dad had on some working gloves. Suspicious,the police said!

It is part of our parents’ lives and part of our lives. We have lost the grand views we once had fromBrentwood Village or from San Vicente due to rapid development; we need places like Gorham to remindus of where we are in this great Los Angeles basin, and who we are. We do not need to grab up everysquare inch of property and build it up; progress is when we realize we are creatures of limited means andvaried needs.

These things I am saying are not new; they are thoughts derived in large part from the best Los Angelesurban writers expressing visions of our future. We need our public spaces; we need the refreshing spirit ofquirky streets such as Gorham; we need to own as a people these special features of our urban life. This ishow we come together, how we attain an identity.

For the oddness of Gorham, that funny little triangle, the way it guides your eyes up that long-stretchingview, is impressed on my mind and the mind of others as strongly as a vivid dream, and is one importantway we have of orienting ourselves in a rapidly changing world. No private party has a right to take awaysuch things which belong to the people.

RESPONSE:

The DEIR assesses the project’s aesthetic impacts on pages IV.L-1 through IV.L-20. Existing visualcharacter of the project site and surrounding area, including views from the project site and views of andthrough the project site, are presented on pages IV.L-1 through IV.L-13. Thresholds of significance, theyardstick by which the significance of the project’s impacts may be measured, are presented on pagesIV.L-13 and IV.L-14. On page IV.L-13, the DEIR notes: “since no empirical criteria exist with which toassess visual impacts in urban areas, the assessment of such impacts is inherently subjective. For thepurposes of this EIR, the development of an incongruous structure relative to its location, loss of a majorpublic scenic view, or loss of a major open space resource would constitute a significant visual impact.”The view analysis that follows on pages IV.L-14 through IV.L-19 concludes that none of the threshold


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

criteria are met; therefore, no significant impacts related to aesthetics or views would result from theproposed project.

LETTER NO. FOXJX

Joan Fox11706 Montana Ave., #209Los Angeles, California


COMMENT NO. FOXJX-1:

As a long time resident of the area of Brentwood involved in this project I have observed many changes,but never one to have so many negative consequences. With the increase in traffic, need for parking anddeletion of Gorham our condominium and all other buildings in the area will have problems of severeparking, noise, access and dangerous speeding traffic (expecially (sic) in alleys). Barrington traffic hasalready increased heavily over the last years and this project could make it much worse.

RESPONSE:

As currently proposed, the project’s 275 parking spaces projected to be contained in the on-siteunderground parking structure are adequate to satisfy the LAMC parking requirements, and include theanticipated parking generated by employees, visitors/patrons, and service vehicles. Thus, no impactsrelated to parking at the project are anticipated. The reader is referred to Topical Response 7.

With respect to the proposed vacation of Gorham Avenue, the DEIR, and the July 26, 2000 LADOT (seeComment Letter TAMX), conclude that traffic conditions on Barrington Avenue and San VicenteBoulevard will improve, and not degrade, as a result of the combination of the proposed project, theclosure of Gorham Avenue and the implementation of the recommended traffic mitigation measures. SeeTopical Response 8.

The reader is referred to Topical Response 9 for a discussion of the project’s impacts on the alley to thenorth.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

As addressed in the DEIR in Section IV-I, the proposed project is expected to create significantcontruction-related noise. Noise from the daily operation of the proposed project would be less thansignificant. The reader is also referred to Responses to Comments WRIGHTX-20 through WRIGHTX-24.


The removal of Gorham and suggested change on the remaining Gorham to a one way street would alsocreate severe problems for the multiple apartment and condo units on that street.

RESPONSE:

The project does not propose that the remaining portion of Gorham Avenue be changed to a one-waystreet. For a discussion of the traffic impacts as a result of the Gorham Avenue vacation, the reader isreferred to Topical Response 8.


San Vicente Blvd is already a multiple business area and I see no need to make this corner of a lovelyresidential area into a city center. This change would not only create multiple problems but wouldundermine our Brentwood Village beauty and status and ultimately reduce the value of our entireresidential area.

Please assist us by denying or at least improving this project’s plan.

RESPONSE:

The project site is not designated for residential uses. It is zoned for commercial uses and designated forcommercial purposes by the Brentwood-Pacific Palisades District Plan. The proposed project isconsistent with both of these designations. The perceived “need” for the project is an economic and/orsocial concern. CEQA does not apply to economic and social effects; thus, the perceived “need” for theproject is outside the scope of the DEIR. (CEQA Guidelines §15131, Public Resources Code §21060.5).No further response is required.

With respect to the project’s creation of multiple problems, refer to Responses to Comments FOXJX-1and FOXJX-2. The DEIR addresses the aesthetic impacts of the proposed project at pages IV.L-1 throughIV.L-20. The DEIR concludes that aesthetic and view impacts resulting from the development of the


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

proposed project would be less than significant. Project effects on property values is an economic issueoutside the scope of the DEIR.

LETTER NO. HARRISX

Bette Harris856 Wellesley AvenueLos Angeles, CA 90049


COMMENT NO. HARRISX-1:

At the November Brentwood Community Council meeting, Bryan Gordon and his team gave a finepresentation of their plans for a commercial project, nearly 55,000 square feet in size. While the buildingplans may have some appeal, the location is totally inappropriate. The intersection of San VicenteBoulevard and Barrington is the heart of Brentwood. Traffic is already very heavy. It would make nosense to add to the problem by building a project of the size proposed.

RESPONSE:

As the results of the DEIR’s traffic analysis show, not only are project impacts mitigated to less thansignificant levels at all intersections with the implementation of the recommended measures, but futuretraffic conditions are expected to be better at most locations than if no project were built, particularlyduring the critical PM peak hour. This indicates that the project mitigation package provides morecapacity than is utilized by the proposed project. This results in improved traffic conditions in the studyarea. The analysis of potential project related traffic impacts are described in the DEIR in Section IV.F,Transportation/Circulation and are summarized on Table IV.F-11, page IV.F-35 of the DEIR.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


Closing the adjacent portion of Gorham Avenue would be a major mistake. This street, though small,provides another option for traffic circulation, particularly in the southbound direction. Removing thisoption adds to the traffic problem - it steers southbound traffic on Barrington to the overburdenedintersection of San Vicente and Barrington. I do not claim to be a traffic analyst, but it does not appearthat dedicated turn lanes would adequately offset the congestion and backed up traffic created by theclosure of Gorham.

RESPONSE:

Several commenters have raised concerns regarding the traffic impacts caused by the proposed vacationof Gorham Avenue. Accordingly, a topical response has been prepared for these comments. The reader isreferred to Topical Response 8. The analysis of potential project related traffic impacts at the intersectionof Barrington Avenue and Gorham Avenue are described in the DEIR in Section IV.F,Transportation/Circulation and are summarized on Table IV.F-11, page IV.F-35 of the DEIR. As noted,the project impacts consider the potential net new trips due to the proposed development, as well as thererouting of existing trips on the local street system as a result of the proposed closure of Gorham Avenuebetween Barrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. See pages IV.F-25 through IV.F-28 of theDEIR for a discussion of the Gorham Avenue closure traffic analysis.

See Response to Comment BEITLERX-7 for a discussion of the project mitigation measure referenced bythe commenter at the intersection of Barrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard as discussed in theDEIR. It is concluded in the DEIR on Table IV.F-12, page IV.F-40 that with implementation of therecommended mitigation measures, the project traffic impacts at the intersection of Barrington Avenueand San Vicente Boulevard are reduced to levels of insignificance.


However, making this portion of Gorham one-way in a southbound direction has merit in smoothing outsome of the traffic bulges.

RESPONSE:

With respect to the suggestion that Gorham Avenue should be made one-way in a southbound direction,the reader is referred Responses to Comments MISCIKOWSKI-1 and MISCIKOWSKI-2.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


Many residents voiced their objections at the BCC meeting, citing safety problems related to ingress andegress, additional traffic along fragile residential alleyways, and less available parking for residents andguests. Others questioned source material used for the draft EIR — (e.g. outdated seismic maps). It wasalso pointed out that the numerous apartment and condominium projects currently underway were notfactored into the study.

While this project may represent the highest and best use of land for Mr. Gordon, it most definitely doesnot serve the interests of Brentwood and its residents. Proceeding with such a project and giving up apublic street to do it would be unconscionable.

RESPONSE:

The DEIR addresses traffic and parking issues at pages IV.F-1 through IV.F-41. The DEIR concludesthat implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce project impacts to a less thansignificant level. For a discussion of site access issues, the reader is referred to Topical Response 10.With respect to seismic maps, the reader is referred to Response to Comment WRIGHTX-17. Withrespect to additional related projects, the reader is referred to Topical Response 6.

LETTER NO. REISSX

Arthur P. Reiss11611 San Vicente Blvd. #711Los Angeles, CA 90049


COMMENT NO. REISSX-1:

I both live and work in Brentwood. The purpose of this letter is to voice my opposition to the aboveproject. Enclosed is a letter outlining my experience with Pacific Equities and Bryan Gordon.

Text of enclosed March 31, 1995, letter to Christie Schroeder, Starbucks Coffee Company:


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

“Dear Ms. Schroeder:

“The good news is that finally after 2 weeks, the graffiti ahs been painted out. I spoke to yourmanager whose name escapes me, and she was very helpful. She spoke of her many attempts toget the landlord to do something. I spoke to the landlord Brian Gordon of pacific EquityProperties located at 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Century City, CA. 310-282-8533. His responsewas ‘I’m trying, the building has special paint and we are trying to match the color.’ He had avery hostile attitude.

“I have also been in contact with Gloria of Haagen Dazs who is also a tenant in the building totryand put some pressure on the landlord.”

RESPONSE:

The commenter has not made a comment regarding the sufficiency of the DEIR (CEQA GuidelinesSection 15204.5(a)). While no further response is required, the commenter is referred to TopicalResponse 1, for a discussion of Section 15204.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, which is intended to help thepublic and public agencies to focus their review of environmental documents and their comments to leadagencies.

LETTER NO. FARMYX

Tima Farmy621 Lorna LaneLos Angeles, CA 90049


COMMENT NO. FARMYX-1

My father built our house at 621 Lorna Lane in 1960 and it is now owned by me. Our street, Lorna Lane,will be tremendously adversely affected if the city allows this unthinkable gift to developer PacificEquities and allows Gorham to be closed permanently.

First of all, Barrington and San Vicente is either the number 1 or number 2 most congested intersection inBrentwood. There are daily traffic jams in this area. To close off Gorham would terribly exacerbate thisproblem.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

It is unlikely that Lorna Lane will be adversely affected by the vacation of Gorham Avenue. First, LornaLane is not a through street. Therefore, area traffic will not use it in an attempt to avoid congestion onother streets. Second, parking on such residential streets as Lorna Lane is not an attractive alternative formany visitors to the Brentwood area. It is not particularly close to the business area and there is nosidewalk. Consequently, those who would park on Lorna Lane must walk in the street. Third, theproposed project includes improvements at the Barrington Avenue/Vicente Boulevard intersection thatwill improve conditions at that location. Specifically, the project is required to dedicate 15 feet ofproperty along the project’s Barrington Avenue frontage and widen Barrington Avenue by 15 feet. Theimprovement allows for the southbound Barrington Avenue approach to the San Vicente Boulevardintersection to be restriped to provide three lanes: one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turnlane. Currently, the southbound Barrington Avenue approach provides only one lane to accommodate allthree movements.

The reader is also referred to Topical Response 8 for a discussion of the traffic impacts associated withthe proposed vacation of Gorham Avenue.


Secondly, closing off Gorham and allowing a 54,700 square foot development will exacerbate anotherterrible problem. We, on Lorna Lane, have become a parking lot for the commercial spill over from SanVicente businesses. Even with a 2-hour parking limit Monday through Saturday, drivers have for a longtime totally neglected sign postings.

On Lorna Lane, residents have NO spaces for even our guests to park. Just a few weeks ago, a residentwas having a baby shower and could not provide parking for a few guests. We have a right to be able touse our little street for normal situations that residents of any other area would enjoy. We are taxpayersand we have families that deserve some of the regular, everyday considerations that other people have.This situation also affects residents of Chenault.

RESPONSE:

Issues related to parking at the project are discussed in the DEIR in Section III, Project Description, andin Section IV.F, Transportation/Circulation. Approximately 275 on-site parking spaces are proposed tobe provided. As discussed on page IV.F-37, the project will provide parking on-site in accordance withthe Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC). The LAMC provides parking rates for retail, office andrestaurant uses which consider the peak parking demands for all site users (employees, visitors/patrons,


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

service vehicles, etc.). Thus, no impacts related to parking at the project are anticipated. Further, due tothe adequate supply of on-site parking, the project is not anticipated to cause additional vehicles to seekstreet parking in the vicinity of the project site.

Lorna Lane was inspected on Wednesday, January 17, 2001, at 2:00 p.m. to determine the extent of on-street parking during a typical weekday afternoon. At that time, there were only three cars parked on thestreet. While Chenault Street had slightly more cars parked on the street, still more than half of theavailable on street parking spaces were unused. See also Response to Comment FARMYX-1.


Neither Chenault nor Lorna Lane have been repaved in the forty years my family has been at Lorna Lane.Our streets are filled with potholes, making it dangerous for children to ride their bikes and forpedestrians to walk without the grave danger of injury to themselves. Why does the city continue toneglect us?

RESPONSE:

Questions regarding street maintenance unrelated to the proposed project are outside the scope of thisEIR.


In addition, the gift of valuable land to a developer should be unthinkable. Unthinkable, because itrepresents a give-away of the PUBLIC’s land and will worsen traffic flow in an already seriouslycongested area.

RESPONSE:

Street and alley vacations are not uncommon occurrences regulated by the California Public Streets,Highways and Service Easements Vacation Law (Cal. Sts. & High. Code §§ 8300 et. seq.). For adiscussion of the approval process for the street vacation request, the reader is referred to TopicalResponse 4.

Please refer to Topical Repsonse 8 for a discussion of traffic impacts caused by the proposed vacation ofGorham Avenue.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


It is said the trade off for this project will be the developer’s improvement of surrounding streets. What isthe price tag for such alleged improvement and what is the value of the proposed land giveaway? If thestreets need improvement that can be done by the city as it is done in other parts of the city and withoutcurrying to the favor of individuals who will profit tremendously and who will profit and the cost ofgreater congestion. This project simply represents corporate greed with public financing.

RESPONSE:

The DEIR does not address trade-offs between the project approval and proposed or required streetimprovements. The initial cost estimates for the project’s required street improvements are outlined in theJuly 26, 2000 LADOT letter, which provides a summary of the project traffic impacts and recommendedmitigation measures (see Comment Letter TAMX). The DEIR does not address the value of the proposedstreet vacation, which is an economic issue rather than an issue about the physical environment. CEQAdoes not apply to economic and social effects (CEQA Guidelines §15131, Public Resources Code§21060.5).


Lorna Lane and Chenault can not (sic) even now function without permit parking. To add this enormousdevelopment will make our streets unlivable.

Please do not allow this to happen. There is now more than enough retail resources in this area. Pleaseconsider quality of life issues and the absurdity of such an unnecessary gift of public property.

My mailing address is a post office box: 2218 Wilshire Blvd. #282, Snta (sic) Monica, CA 90403.

Thank you for your consideration.

RESPONSE:

See Responses to Comments FARMYX-1 and FARMYX-2.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

LETTER NO. KELLERX

Raymond A. Keller AIA11973 San Vicente BoulevardLos Angeles, California 90049


COMMENT NO. KELLERX-1:

Under Chapter IV Aesthetics, the draft report indicates several times a conclusion that there are nosignificant impacts from views of and through the project.

This conclusion is not correct, and in fact the impact of the project on the view shed of the immediate areais one of the most serious environmental impact problems of the project if developed as indicated.

One of the prime tenants of the San Vicente Corridor Specific Plan is the protection of the aestheticnatural ambiance of the San Vicente Corridor through the maintenance and preservation of the medianstrip, and through the creation of new open space and mini-parks.

By absorbing the street vacation of Gorham avenue and placing the 3 story front of their building about80 feet closer to San Vicente than would be practicable under the existing split lot configuration, theyhave eliminated the long and short range view that is now the very important and significant open spaceview of Gorham Avenue and the adjacent areas.

This new imposing structure adjacent the the (sic) San Vicente, Barrington intersection would replace theexisting open low scale view with the adjacency and visual blockage of a new three story structuredominating the intersection.

RESPONSE:

As noted in the DEIR on page IV.L-13, because there are no empirical criteria with which to assess visualimpacts in urban areas, the assessment of such impacts is inherently subjective. Consequently, an EIR’saesthetics/view discussions can be a contentious portion of the analysis. CEQA recognizes that honestdifferences of opinion may occur between experts. (In this instance the commenter is an architect, thepreparer of the aesthetics discussion is a professional urban planner with many years of experienceconducting visual analyses within an urban context.) Moreover, Guidelines Section 15151 makes it clearthat such disagreement does not make an EIR inadequate. Rather, the adequacy of an EIR is to be judged


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

on its completeness and good faith effort at full disclosure. By including these comments on the DEIR’saesthetics discussion, this EIR herewith summarizes the commenter’s main points of disagreement, asrequired by CEQA Guidelines Section 15151.

The commenter contends that the project will eliminate “the long and short-range view that is now thevery important and significant open space view of Gorham Avenue and the adjacent areas”. The DEIRaddresses this impact on page IV.L-17. The DEIR and the commenter are in agreement that the existingview corridor looking southwest along Gorham Avenue from east of the project site will be eliminated bythe proposed development. The difference in opinion revolves around the significance of that impact.The DEIR finds the impact to be less than significant. With respect to views from the east (i.e., alongGorham Avenue) the DEIR states:

…The proposed street vacation of Gorham Avenue between San Vicente Boulevard and BarringtonAvenue would effectively block views through the project site, although these views are characterizedby existing urban development and roadways and do not encompass any valued view resources.

On page IV.L-13, the DEIR lists the following thresholds of significance to be used to evaluate theproject’s impacts:

…the development of an incongruous structure relative to its location, loss of a major publicscenic view, or loss of a major open space resource would constitute a significant visual impact.In addition, inconsistency of the proposed project with any objectives of relevant City policy,with respect to architectural requirements, would constitute a significant impact.

None of the thresholds have been exceeded: 1) The project is not incongruous relative to its location. It isa commercial development on a commercially designated property. 2) It does not cause the loss of amajor public scenic view. The view along Gorham Avenue is characterized by existing urbandevelopment and roadways (i.e., parking lots, architecturally undistinguished structures, and over headutilities lines). Furthermore the view along Gorham Avenue does not look out over a major scenicresource. Rather, for the most part, the view along Gorham is directed towards a commercial/shoppingdistrict of more architecturally undistinguished structures. 3) It does not cause the loss of a major openspace resource. The portion of Gorham Avenue to be vacated is only 180 feet long. It is not a major openspace, it is a short, paved urban street. 4) As discussed on pages IV.L-18 and 19, the project is consistentwith the San Vicente Scenic Corridor Specific Plan policies that address visual character. On this basisthe DEIR has determined there would be no significant impact.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


If Gorham Avenue is vacated, the existing open space - low scale profile must be maintained to conformto the tenants of the Specific Plan. This plan concept could easily be accomplished by the total lot squarefootage of the development being confined essentially to the existing northern line of Gorham Avenue.

The vacated land can then be used for traffic mitigation measures at the corner with the majority of thevacation preserved as dedicated green space-open three sides-and totally adjacent to the San Vicente-Barrington intersection.

The open space would remain dedicated to preserving the view shed for the public could and wouldremain for public use under the control of the city park department or a public trust.

RESPONSE:

The San Vicente Corridor Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”) does not, as the commenter suggests, requiremaintenance of the existing open-space - low scale profile of the project site. The primary purpose of theSpecific Plan that relates to the project is “maintaining the existing ambiance of San Vicente Boulevard”.(Specific Plan, p. 2.) This existing ambiance is a “pedestrian-scaled environment with special qualitiessuch as widened sidewalks, many small plazas and generous amounts of parking that have consistentlygenerated vitality, diversity, and interest and ultimately success.” (Specific Plan, p. 2.) This purpose isdiscussed further in the DEIR at p. IV.A-8. The project will meet this purpose of the Specific Plan by theestablishment of ground floor retail area, enhancement of pedestrian linkages, the inclusion of 4,800square feet of public plaza space, and the provision of adequate parking for the intended uses. (DEIR, p.III-3, 4; IV.A-18.)

The commenter proposes to confine the development to the parcels north of Gorham Avenue, and use thevacated portion of Gorham Avenue and the existing corner parcel “for traffic mitigation measures at thecorner with the majority of the vacation preserved as dedicated open space,” in order to preserve theexisting view shed. With regard to traffic mitigation measures, it is not clear from the comment whatmeasures the commenter has in mind; mitigation presently proposed for the project is located outside thisparcel. With regard to open space, as noted in the aesthetics analysis in the DEIR, the interruption of thepresent view shed by the project does not constitute a significant impact because views through the siteare already interrupted by nearby urban uses. (DEIR, p. IV.L-16, 17.)

Further, the reduction in the project footprint proposed by the commenter has the potential to generateother impacts related to increased density. These impacts are discussed further in Alternative No. 2,which assumes all development would take place on the parcels described by the commenter. (DEIR, p.VI-7 through 10.)


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


In conclusion the negative aesthetic view shed impact of the proposed project as proposed is a veryserious negative impact and must be addressed.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Response to Comment KELLERX-1.

LETTER NO. MINASSIANX

Garo V. Minassian, PresidentPost Office Box 49427Los Angeles, CA 90049-0427


COMMENT NO. MINASSIANX-1:

The Brentwood Homeowners Association, representing over 3000 homeowners, wishes to submit theattached “Review of Traffic Study in the DEIR”, prepared by Kumar Consulting Services, dated,November 29, 2000.

The analysis in the report concludes that the DEIR does not adequately address, nor accuratelydetermines, the future traffic impacts of the proposed project. Therefore, BHA believes there is realevidence that the traffic component of the DEIR is deficient and requires re-study.

BHA has issues to put forth with respect to the DEIR in addition to traffic, which is being submitted in aseparate letter.

RESPONSE:

Each of the submitted comments are address in the following Responses to Comments MINASSIANX-2through MINASSIAN-25.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


This letter report summarizes my comments based on the review of the Draft Environmental ImpactReport (DEIR) and the Traffic Impact Study Report (Traffic Report), and on my observations during myvisit to the proposed project site and its surrounding area on Friday, November 24, 2000. Christopher A.Joseph & Associates prepared the DEIR dated September 2000, and Crain & Associates prepared theTraffic Report revised in July 2000.

Summary

The Traffic Report does not adequately address the future traffic impacts on the roadways andintersections due to the following reasons:

1. The redistribution of existing / ambient traffic due to the proposed vacation of Gorham Avenuedoes not appear to be reasonable.

RESPONSE:

The analysis of potential project related traffic impacts are described in the DEIR in Section IV.F,Transportation/Circulation and are summarized on Table IV.F-11, page IV.F-35 of the DEIR. The projectimpacts consider the potential net new trips due to the proposed commercial development, as well as thererouting of existing trips on the local street system as a result of the proposed closure of Gorham Avenuebetween Barrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. See pages IV.F-25 through IV.F-28 of theDEIR for a discussion of the Gorham Avenue closure traffic analysis. As shown in Table IV.F-11, priorto consideration of mitigation measures, the project is forecasted to result in significant traffic impacts atthree intersections. Table IV.F-12, page IV.F-40 of the DEIR indicates that with implementation of therecommended mitigation measures, the traffic impacts of the project are reduced to less than significantlevels.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


2. Projects that are under construction and likely to significantly impact the key intersections in theimmediate vicinity of the proposed project, are not included in the analysis.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Topical Response 6 for a discussion of the methodology for forecasting futuretraffic attributed to the related projects. It is concluded that the current development projects identified inthe project area which were not included in the list of related projects provided in the DEIR will add arelatively small number of new trips to the local street system. These additional trips are adequatelyaccounted for the annual traffic growth factor applied to the existing traffic counts, which is used in theDEIR traffic analysis to forecast future traffic conditions, in addition to the future traffic that may begenerated by the related projects identified in the DEIR. Thus, the DEIR provides a sufficientlyconservative forecast of the future pre-project traffic volumes on the local street system.

A discussion of related projects is provided in the DEIR in Section II.B, Related Projects, beginning onpage II-5. Table II-1, page II-6 of the DEIR provides a list of the related projects, which are also shownby location on Figure II-3, page II-7. The methodology for forecasting future traffic attributed to therelated projects is discussed in IV.F, Transportation/Circulation beginning on page IV.F-10. As discussedin Section II.B, the list of related projects was assembled in accordance with standards set forth in theState CEQA Guidelines. Data regarding related projects was provided to the DEIR preparers in March,1999 by the Los Angeles Department of City Planning, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation(LADOT), and the City of Santa Monica. The related projects were verified based on field observationsand were approved for use in the DEIR by the City of Los Angeles.

While not required by State CEQA Guidelines, LADOT requires that DEIR traffic impact evaluations fordevelopment projects also include annual traffic growth factor from the year of the area traffic counts tothe year of the anticipated project build-out. The annual traffic growth factor is used in addition to trafficforecasted from the related projects to forecast future pre-project traffic conditions on the local roadwaynetwork. As stated on page IV.F-10, the traffic growth factor is used to account for increases in trafficresulting from projects not yet proposed or outside the study area.

Subsequent to the assembling of the related projects list considered for the DEIR, several relatively smalldevelopment projects have initiated construction in the study area. A field review was conducted forpurposes of identifying these additional development projects, which are listed below. Also provide is anestimate of the PM peak hour trip generation potential of the projects using the trip rates provided on pageIV.F-13 of the DEIR:


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

� 11900 Montana Avenue (southwest corner of Westgate Avenue/Montana Avenue intersection).Currently under construction at this site are 15 multi-family residential units. The site waspreviously vacant. This project is estimated to generate 12 new peak hour trips.

� 11670 San Vicente Boulevard (south side of San Vicente Boulevard east of Barrington Avenue).Currently under construction at this site are 43 multi-family residential units and 5,000 squarefeet of commercial floor area. The site was previously occupied by 10,000 square feet ofcommercial floor area (occupied by a bank and office use). This project is estimated to generate6 net new peak hour trips.

� 1747 Barrington Avenue and 11701 Montana Avenue (northwest corner of BarringtonAvenue/Montana Avenue intersection). Currently under construction at this site are 15 multi-family residential units. The site was previously vacant. This project is estimated to generate 12new peak hour trips.

Review of files at LADOT indicate that traffic studies were not required for these projects, primarily dueto the fact that the potential net new peak hour trip generation of these developments are well below thetraffic study thresholds identified in the West Los Angeles Transportation Improvement and MitigationSpecific Plan (WLA TIMP), which requires traffic studies for projects that may potentially generate morethan 43 net new peak hour trips.

It is concluded that the current development projects identified in the project area which were notincluded in the list of related projects provided in the DEIR will add a relatively small number of newtrips to the local street system. These additional trips are adequately accounted for in the annual trafficgrowth factor applied to the existing traffic counts, which is used in the DEIR traffic analysis to forecastfuture traffic conditions, in addition to the future traffic that may be generated by the related projectsidentified in the DEIR. Thus, the DEIR provides a sufficiently conservative forecast of the future pre-project traffic volumes on the local street system.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


3. The project analyzed in the Traffic Report does not represent the worst-case scenario of thealternatives proposed in the DEIR on the subject site.

RESPONSE:

The trip generation forecast for the project is described in the DEIR on pages IV.F-18 through IV.F-20.Table IV.F-9 provides a summary of the project trip generation forecast. As stated in the DEIR, the triprates used to forecast the project trip generation are based on the “Shopping Center” land use. As definedin the Trip Generation manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, a Shopping Centeris a commercial complex providing a mix of tenants that are primarily retail in nature, but also containingother uses such as restaurants and office space. Therefore, LADOT determined that it was appropriate toapply trips rates associated with the Shopping Center land use to the entire floor area of the proposedproject since the primary tenants are expected to be retail in nature, but could include office and restaurantuses. Similarly, the correct methodology is to apply the pass-by trip reduction to the entire floor area ofthe center, rather than individual components.

As noted on page I-2, the project is proposed to contain 42,700 square feet of retail space, 10,000 squarefeet of restaurant space and 2,000 square feet of office space. Should the amount of office space increasewith a corresponding reduction in retail floor area, it is anticipated that the net trip generation at theproject site will decrease, and not increase as suggested by the commenter. This is due to the fact thatoffice floor area generates fewer trips per square foot than retail floor area (mostly attributed to the lack ofpatronage traffic generated by office uses) as documented in the Trip Generation manual. The tripgeneration changes due to a project providing up to 13,300 square feet of office floor area is discussed inthe DEIR on page IV.F-38. Therefore, by assuming that the site will be primarily occupied by retail uses,the DEIR provides a conservative forecast of trips that could be generated by the project.


4. Project traffic circulation patterns and assignments assumed in the study may not materialize dueto difficulty in maneuvering vehicles over short distances on San Vicente Boulevard.

RESPONSE:

Several commenters have raised concerns regarding project traffic patterns and site access. Accordingly,a topical response has been prepared for these comments. The reader is referred to Topical Response 10.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


5. The mitigation measures proposed at intersections primarily involve funding ATCS to beimplemented by LADOT. There is no guarantee that the system would be operational prior to thecompletion of the project.

RESPONSE:

The mitigation measure referenced by the commenter, the ATCS traffic signal upgrade, is discussed in theDEIR on pages IV.F-38 through IV.F-41. The mitigation measure is also recommended in the July 26,2000 letter issued by LADOT regarding the project (see Comment Letter TAMX). The LADOT letterindicates that the City will be responsible for the design and implementation of the ATCS traffic signalsystem. LADOT requires the project developer to make the ATCS contribution prior to issuance of thebuilding permit for the project. It is reasonable to anticipate that once this contribution is received, theATCS traffic signal system will be implemented within the general timeframe that the project is built andoccupied.


6. The impacts due to future background traffic and the project-generated traffic may havesignificant adverse residual impacts at the intersections even after implementation of ATCS.

In conclusion, the Traffic Report appears to underestimate the deterioration in level of service on theroadways and at intersections due to the future traffic volumes in the vicinity of the project. The issuesraised in this Summary are supported by detailed discussions in this letter report. Examples are limited toP.M. Peak Hour Analysis to illustrate the point being made.

RESPONSE:

The traffic mitigation measures recommended for the project are described in the DEIR on pages IV.F-38through IV.F-41. The traffic analysis and mitigation measures are also detailed in the July 26, 2000 letterissued by LADOT (see Comment Letter TAMX). As shown in Table IV.F-11, prior to consideration ofmitigation measures, the project is forecasted to result in significant traffic impacts at three intersections.Table IV.F-12, page IV.F-40 of the DEIR indicates that with implementation of the recommendedmitigation measures, the traffic impacts of the project are reduced to less than significant levels.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


I. Vacation of Gorham Avenue – Redistribution of Existing / Ambient Future Traffic

Figure 9(b) of the Traffic Report illustrates Future (2004) Traffic Volumes Without Project. It is seen thatGorham Avenue, between San Vicente Boulevard and Barrington Avenue, would accommodate thefollowing traffic volumes:

From Figure 9(b)

The total P.M. Peak Hour inbound traffic volume projected to use Gorham Avenue, between San VicenteBoulevard and Barrington Avenue, is 286 vehicles. Table 5 of the Traffic Report estimates the inboundtrips generated by the existing uses to be 45 vehicles. The remaining 241 trips can therefore, bereasonably assumed to be background traffic that must be reassigned to other roadways if GorhamAvenue is vacated.

Figure 8(b) on Page 42 of the Traffic Report illustrates the Net Project Volumes With Gorham ClosureConditions. The logic of calculating the trips illustrated in this Figure is not immediately apparent, andcould not be replicated using the background traffic volumes illustrated in Figure 9(b) and proposedproject traffic volumes illustrated in Figure 5(b).

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment MINASSIANX-2 for a discussion of the analysis of potential project relatedtraffic impacts described in the DEIR which considers the potential net new trips due to the proposedproject as well as the rerouting of existing trips on the local street system as a result of the proposedclosure of Gorham Avenue between Barrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

On pages IV.F-25 through IV.F-28, the DEIR provides a discussion of the methodology regarding theredistribution of vehicles currently using Gorham Avenue. Figures IV.F-6a and IV.F-6b, pages IV.F-29and IV.F-30 of the DEIR provide the net project traffic volumes for both the proposed commercial projectand the redistributed trips due to the Gorham Avenue closure for the AM and PM peak hours,respectively.

The redistribution of Gorham Avenue trips to the local street system is illustrated through review of thefollowing tables and figures in the DEIR. For example, Table IV.F-9, page IV.F-20 of the DEIR indicatesthat the existing site uses generate 48 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. Figure IV.F-7b, pageIV.F-32 of the DEIR shows the PM peak hour future pre-project traffic volumes on Gorham Avenue. The“outbound” volumes on the segment proposed for closure are as follows (obtained by summing left-turn,through and right-turn volumes for exiting approaches: for northbound Gorham at Barrington, theoutbound volume is 143 vehicles, and for southbound Gorham at San Vicente, the outbound volume is152 vehicles. Thus, the total number of trips to be reassigned is 247 vehicles (152 northbound trips + 143southbound trips - 48 existing trips to be removed).

In comparing Figure IV.F-7b (PM peak hour future with project) to Figure IV.F-8b (PM peak hour futurewith project), it is shown that several key movements that will facilitate the redirected Gorham Avenuetraffic flow show increases in traffic in the future with project condition. For example, movements thatwould be expected to accommodate the northbound Gorham Avenue outbound flow, and their respectiveincreases (not related to the commercial development) are as follows: eastbound left-turn from SanVicente Boulevard to Montana Avenue (7 trips); northbound through movement on Montana Avenue atSan Vicente Boulevard (43 trips) and eastbound left-turn from San Vicente Boulevard to BarringtonAvenue (67 trips). For southbound Gorham Avenue traffic, the following movements are expected toaccommodate the outbound flow: southbound Montana Avenue right-turn to San Vicente Boulevard (39trips); southbound Montana Avenue through movement at San Vicente Boulevard (54 trips); andsouthbound right-turn from Barrington Avenue to San Vicente Boulevard (34 trips). In all, 244 of the 247redirected Gorham Avenue trips are readily accounted for in review of the figures provided in the DEIR(the remaining three trips are assigned to other local streets or are accounted for through rounding).Therefore, the DEIR provides a reasonable and accountable analysis of the potential redistributed trafficdue to the proposed closure of Gorham Avenue.


Figure 10(b) on Page 47 illustrates the Future (2004) Traffic Volumes With Project, and Gorham Avenuevacated. The left-turn volumes on eastbound San Vicente Boulevard at Barrington Avenue, shown as 284vehicles, may be underestimated due to the discrepancy in the reassignment of background trafficexplained in the previous paragraph. If the underestimation is significant one left-turn lane may not besufficient, and the level of service at this intersection will deteriorate.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

Additional analysis must be conducted to illustrate the redistribution of background / ambient traffic tothe surrounding intersections due to the proposed vacation of Gorham Avenue. Levels of service at theintersections in the immediate vicinity of the project must be recalculated with a reasonable redistributionof traffic.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Response to Comment MINASSIANX-2 for a discussion of the analysis ofpotential project related traffic impacts described in the DEIR which considers the potential net new tripsdue to the proposed commercial development, as well as the rerouting of existing trips on the local streetsystem as a result of the proposed closure of Gorham Avenue between Barrington Avenue and SanVicente Boulevard.

The reader is referred to Response to Comment MINASSIANX-8 for a discussion of the methodologyregarding the redistribution of traffic currently utilizing the segment of Gorham Avenue betweenBarrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. No changes to the traffic analysis are required.


II. Related Projects Under Construction Not Included in the Traffic Report

Figure 7 on Page 35 of the Traffic Report illustrates the locations of Related Projects included in theanalysis. Table 7 lists these related projects. There are 3 significant residential and retail projects underconstruction in the immediate vicinity of the project site that have not been included in the analysis.Exhibit A shows these projects under construction. When occupied, these projects would have significantimpacts at least on the following 3 intersections:

� San Vicente Boulevard at Barrington Avenue

� San Vicente Boulevard at Montana Avenue

� Montana Avenue at Barrington Avenue

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment MINASSIANX-3 for a discussion of the related projects considered in theDEIR, as well as the review of the additional construction projects identified by the commenter.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


Exhibit B shows the access to the residential / retail project under construction on San Vicente Boulevard,east of Barrington avenue. Access to this project is primarily through the Alley south of San VicenteBoulevard on Barrington Avenue. Level of Service at the San Vicente Boulevard / Barrington Avenueintersection would be significantly impacted due to this project. Table 11 on Page 52 of the TrafficReport shows that the volume-to-capacity ratio is projected to be 0.985 after mitigation, even without therelated projects, and with the possible underestimation of the redistributed background trips (as describedin Section I above).

The 3 intersections listed above are also those that are projected to be significantly impacted due to theproject, prior to mitigation. The primary measure assumed to improve traffic conditions and mitigateimpacts is the ATCS system. The schedule for implementing the ATCS system at the key intersections isnot guaranteed to precede or coincide with the occupancy of the proposed project.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Response to Comment MINASSIANX-3 for a discussion of the related projectsconsidered in the DEIR, as well as the review of the additional construction projects identified by thecommenter. As shown in the response, the construction project noted by the commenter (11670 SanVicente Boulevard) is forecasted to generate approximately 6 net new PM peak hour trips. As discussedin the response, the potential new trips due to the construction project is adequately accounted for in theannual traffic growth factor utilized in the DEIR. Nevertheless, the relatively small number of new tripsgenerated by the construction project would have a negligible effect on the Level of Service calculationsprepared for the study intersections, including the adjacent Barrington Avenue/San Vicente Boulevardintersection.

See Response to Comment MINASSIANX-6 for a discussion regarding the implementation of the ATCStraffic signal upgrade.


III. Worst Case Scenario Not Analyzed

The Project Summary on Page I-2 of the DEIR states that 54,700 square feet of commercial (retail,restaurant and office) uses are proposed. One option is to develop 10,000 square feet of restaurant, 2,000square feet of office, and 42,700 square feet of retail uses. A second alternative proposed includes 10,000square feet of restaurant, 13,300 square feet of offices, and 31,400 square feet of retail. The DEIR also


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

states that the option analyzed in the Traffic Report, where the entire floor area is analyzed as “RetailUse”, is the “Worst Case” Project Trip generation Scenario. However, as the table below clearlydemonstrates, the net trip generation of the second alternative will be greater. In particular, the“outbound” P.M. Peak Hour trips, which would cause more significant impacts, would be significantlygreater than those estimated in the Traffic Report. The second alternative would generate 495 vehicletrips during the P.M. Peak Hour, of which 274 would be outbound. While the 40% pass-by tripsproportion used in the traffic report is high, using the same proportion, the number of new outbound tripswould be 214 for the alternative, compared with 139 trips presented in Table 5 of the Traffic Report, anincrease of 54%. Therefore, the statement that the “worst case scenario” was analyzed, is incorrect.

TABLE 1P.M. PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES FOR ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 2 Floor area Total Inbound Outbound

Office 13,300 s.f. 94 16 78

Restaurant 10,000 s.f. 109 65 44

Retail 31,400 s.f. 292 140 152

40% Pass-by 31,400 s.f. -116 -56 -60

Net New Trips 54,700 s.f. 379 165 214

Traffic Report Net New Trips 268 129 139

Under Estimation Traffic Report 41% 28% 54%

It is seen from Table 1 that traffic impacts for the second alternative would be significantly greater, andthat the DEIR’s claim that the “worst case scenario” was analyzed in the traffic study must be re-evaluated.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Response to Comment MINASSIANX-4. The trip generation table provided bythe commenter does not provide necessary citations for the trip rates used to develop the forecasts.Furthermore, the table, which attempts to separate the various elements of the project, is inconsistent withtrip generation methodologies required by LADOT, and recommended by the Institute of TransportationEngineers for a shopping center land use. Therefore, the findings of the commenter are not supported bysubstantial evidence.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


IV. Project Traffic Assignment

Figure 4 in the Traffic Report on Page 24 illustrates the project traffic distribution percentages, and Figure5(b) illustrates the P.M. Peak Hour Project Traffic Assignment. Of particular interest is the splitting up ofthe “U” Turns from westbound to eastbound San Vicente Boulevard at the break in the median, and at itsintersection with Montana Avenue.

Based on the proposed location of the project driveway, the lane to approach the break in the medianwould be within 100 feet east of the driveway. The motorist must cross two lanes of traffic and a parkinglane and enter the left-turn pocket to make the “U” Turn within this distance. It must also be noted that if“U” Turns were permitted at this location, vehicles exiting the “Whole Foods” grocery store parking lotwould also maneuver to make the turn. These maneuvers, while being difficult, would also give rise tosafety issues.

It would be reasonable to reassign the “U” Turns from the break in the median to the San VicenteBoulevard / Montana Avenue intersection. However, this would impact the level of service at thatintersection. The traffic generated by the related projects, as demonstrated in the previous section, hasalso not been considered at this intersection. The land-uses and floor areas of the project may requirereview to mitigate adverse impacts.

RESPONSE:

See Topical Response 10 for a discussion of the project site access scheme. See Response to CommentMINASSIANX-3 for a discussion of the related projects considered in the DEIR, as well as the review ofthe additional construction projects identified by the commenter.


V. ATCS Mitigation

The primary measure recommended in the Traffic Report to mitigate adverse project traffic impacts is theimplementation of ATCS at the intersections. The methodology involves addition in capacity of up to 7%for the ATSAC system, and an additional 3% for the ATCS system. LADOT allows the use of thesecapacity enhancements in calculating levels of service. However, it is not evident that the City wouldimplement ATCS at the impacted intersections prior to the completion of the project. All 53 location (sic)in the system, as stated in the traffic report, must be implemented. Furthermore, due to the location of


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

driveways in close proximity to each other, on-street parking, and numerous turning maneuvers, it is notevident that the optimization sought to be achieved through the implementation of ATCS, would actuallyoccur. The Traffic Report recommends that contributing funds towards the implementation of the ATCS,and not actual implementation of it, would constitute mitigation of impacts.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Response to Comment MINASSIANX-6 for a discussion of the ATCS trafficsignal upgrade and the timing of implementation relative to build-out and occupancy of the project.


VI. Estimated Future Traffic Volumes And Impacts

The future traffic volume estimates in the Traffic Report may be lower than actual future traffic volumes,as the Traffic Report does not include trips generated by the 3 related projects in the immediate vicinity ofthe site. Furthermore, assumptions with respect to project trip generation and assignment, andreassignment of background traffic due to the closure of Gorham Avenue must be reviewed.

Trip Generation Analysis used in the Traffic Report assumes the entire floor area will accommodate“Retail use”, and that 40% of the patrons would already be using the streets in the vicinity of the proposedproject, and would be considered to be pass-by trips. The analysis included in this report demonstratesthat the trip generation would be higher than the Traffic Report estimates if they were calculated based onthe proposed uses separately, even assuming the 40% pass-by trips as being reasonable.

The impacts due to the proposed vacation and closure of Gorham Avenue on the adjacent intersectionsmust be reviewed in light of the discrepancies in the redistribution of background trips. Levels of Serviceat San Vicente Boulevard and Barrington Avenue may particularly be impacted if the reassignment ofbackground traffic is reviewed.

The highly impacted intersections, now projected to operate at high Level of Service D or E, coulddeteriorate further when all the issues raised in this letter report are addressed.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Response to Comment MINASSIANX-3 for a discussion of the related projectsconsidered in the DEIR, as well as the review of the additional construction projects identified by thecommenter. See Response to Comment MINASSIANX-12 for a discussion of the trip generation


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

methodology used in the DEIR. See Response to Comment MINASSIANX-2 which provides adiscussion of the analysis of potential traffic impacts due to the project, including the closure of GorhamAvenue.


Conclusions

Based on the review of the Traffic Report and the DEIR, a number of issues arise with respect to theassumptions and the completeness of the traffic impact analysis. In particular, future traffic impacts maybe worse than those stated in the Traffic Report due to the following reasons:

� Reassignment of background trips due to closure of Gorham Avenue;

� Project Trip Generation and Assignment Assumptions;

� Non-inclusion of large projects under construction in the Related Projects Analysis;

� Relying primarily upon ATCS implementation for traffic impact mitigation.

If upon further analysis, the future impacts are projected to be worse than currently estimated, the scaleand the land use of the project that can be reasonably developed must be determined. The vacation ofGorham Avenue, the location of the project driveway, and the proposed median design and operation onSan Vicente Boulevard must also be revisited.

RESPONSE:

The commenter has provided a summary of issues raised in the letter. The reader is referred to Responsesto Comments MINASSIANX-2 through MINASSIANX-15.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


BRENTWOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONBrian Gordon Project “The Park”Deficiencies in Draft EIR

1. The plot plan and other drawings need dimensions and scales in order to be studied.

RESPONSE:

Figure III-1 of the Draft EIR (“Proposed Site Plan”) is drawn to a scale of 1” = 20.6 feet. Dimensions ofany component of this drawing may be derived from that scale. Figures III-2 and III-3 of the Draft EIRare three-dimensional perspective drawings, intended for the purpose of conveying the design of theproject. These figures are not amenable to scales or dimensions.

In addition, the four drawings included in the Corrections and Additions section (section V) of this FinalEIR are drawn to the following scales:

Figure FEIR-1: 1” = 31 feet

Figure FEIR-2: 1” = 71.8 feet



The color key for Figure FEIR-1 is as follows:

Blue Curb line (existing)

Yellow Property line (existing)

Orange Building footprint (existing)

Red Curb line (proposed)

Black Property line (proposed)

Grey Building footprint (proposed)


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

Additional specificity is not required by CEQA. As noted in CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, thedescription of the project “…should not supply extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluation andreview of the environmental impact.” Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15151 provides that thesufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. What is required is theproduction of information sufficient to understand the environmental impacts of the proposed project andto permit reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned.


2. Significant additional alternate uses for the site need to be studied:

a. What project could be developed if Gorham Avenue were not closed and the projectadhered to the statutory limit of 1.5 FAR and 40-foot height limit?

RESPONSE:

The DEIR includes an alternative similar to the one suggested by the commenter. Under Alternative 2(pages VI-7 through VI-10), Gorham Avenue would be retained and the northern and southern halves ofthe project site could be developed to the maximum density permitted in the San Vicente Scenic CorridorSpecific Plan (FAR of 2.5:1, or 2.0:1 if four story buildings are included, not to exceed a height of 48feet).

However, the DEIR does not address the more restrictive building limitations suggested by thecommenter. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the DEIR need not consider everyconceivable alternative to the project. Rather, it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasiblealternatives that will foster informed decisionmaking and public participation. In compliance with theCEQA Guidelines, the DEIR provides a reasonable range of five alternatives (see pages VI-1 through VI-18). For further discussion of CEQA requirements regarding the preparation of alternatives, the reader isreferred to Topical Response 5.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


b. What project could be developed if Gorham Avenue were closed and a public-ownedpark were created at the northwesterly corner of San Vicente and Barrington equal to thesize of the closed portion of Gorham Avenue, which is about 13,000 square feet; againadhering to the code restrictions of 1.5 FAR and 40-foot height limit?

RESPONSE:

The suggested alternative does not meet the project’s objectives nor is it currently feasible. In order forthe City to develop a park on a portion of the applicant’s privately owned property, the City would firsthave to acquire the property. To date, neither the City nor any other public agency has made an offer topurchase the property. The reader is also referred to Response to Comment MINASSIANX-18.


3. The viability of the project should be studied if all utilities are placed underground at the expenseof the developer, as required by the San Vicente Scenic Corridor Specific Plan.

RESPONSE:

Section 14 of the San Vicente Scenic Corridor Specific Plan requires new projects to place utility linesunderground, at no cost to the City. However, a preliminary investigation of the under-grounding ofutilities conducted by the DWP indicates that the utilities in front of the project site could not be under-grounded alone, but only in conjunction with the under-grounding of all utilities from the alley south ofMontana to the alley south of Darlington. The project applicant indicates its willingness to pay itsproportionate cost of the under-grounding if the City decides to underground all of the utilities.


4. The need for additional parking spaces should be studied in relation to actual experience with theother large commercial developments in this San Vicente corridor. All of the other developmentsappear to have severely inadequate parking at peak periods, indicating that city-wide standardsare not applicable to this area, in part because public transportation is not used extensively in thisarea and because there are no public parking areas to absorb the excess cars.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

Several commenters have raised concerns regarding the adequacy of the project’s proposed on-siteparking. Accordingly, a topical response has been prepared for these comments. The reader is referred toTopical Response 7.


5. A study should be provided of the desirability of adding an additional lane to the north side ofSan Vicente to provide a stacking area for cars waiting to enter the valet-controlled parkingstructure. Experience shows that in structures like Brentwood Gardens the cars waiting to enterthe parking structure block an entire westbound lane of San Vicente during peak period.

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment BEITLERX-5 for a discussion of the project site access and internalcirculation scheme. It is anticipated that the project will provide sufficient on-site circulation so as topreclude vehicles from queuing onto San Vicente Boulevard. The July 26, 2000 letter issued by LADOTfor the project indicates that a separate right-turn lane may be provided along westbound San VicenteBoulevard in advance of the project driveway to further minimize the effects of vehicles turning into theproject site (see Comment Letter TAMX).


6. A study is needed for alternate ways of handling traffic exiting from the parking structure so thatall of the exiting cars will not be forced to enter the westbound lanes of San Vicente Boulevardjust a few feet from the exit from the Whole Foods parking lot and just a few feet from the trafficsignal proposed at the restructured intersection with Gorham. Specifically a study should bemade of requiring all cars from the parking structure to exit on the alley northerly of the project,as required for the Brentwood Gardens and Brentwood Square buildings just one-half block eastof the project. This would not interfere with the free flow of traffic on San Vicente and it wouldpermit the cars to disperse to Montana, Barrington, and San Vicente eastbound rather than forcingall of the traffic onto San Vicente westbound.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:


The project vehicular access scheme provides for a driveway located near the westerly site boundaryalong San Vicente Boulevard, in the approximate location of the existing north leg of Gorham Avenue.The location of the project driveway was selected in part to minimize potential adverse affects at theBarrington Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard intersection. By providing accommodations for both ingressand egress movements at the proposed driveway on San Vicente Boulevard, potential impacts to the alleylocated along the north side of the project site are minimized.

The proposed driveway location will not be combined with the existing driveway serving the WholeFoods market as suggested by the commenter. Appropriate separation will be provided between the twodriveways as determined by LADOT in their final review and approval of the site access scheme so as toreduce potential vehicle conflicts between the two driveways.


7. The size and location of the unloading area for large trucks should be identified so the impact canbe determined upon the abutting properties and alleys.

RESPONSE:

Vans and small trucks (the size of FedEx or UPS vehicles) will be unloading in the loading dock providedoff the alley. As the project loading zone is completely contained within the project site, the deliveryvehicles will not block the alley. Large trucks will unload on San Vicente Boulevard. The unloadingtimes for both sizes of delivery vehicles will be restricted so as not to interfere with traffic on the alley orSan Vicente Boulevard and to minimally disrupt the occupants of the abutting properties.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


8. A study should be made of the adequacy of the alley northerly of the project to accommodate thelarge supply trucks for the project in view of the fact that the alley carries two-way traffic in anarrow single lane interrupted by telephone poles, trash containers, and right-angle parking underthe apartments on the north side of the alley. The study should include the possibility of aloading area accessed directly from Barrington Avenue without utilizing the existing alleys.

RESPONSE:

Several commenters have raised concerns regarding the project’s impact on the alley to the north of thesite. Accordingly, a topical response has been prepared for these comments. The reader is referred toTopical Response 9.

LADOT dismissed direct vehicular access to Barrington Avenue for the project site so as to minimizepotential impacts to this key roadway.

LETTER NO. SINGERX

Stefanie SingerNo Address Given


COMMENT NO. SINGERX-1:

I am writing to let you know that I strongly oppose the proposed development known as Brentwood Park– to be built by Pacific Equities – at San Vicente Blvd. and Barrington Avenue. The proposed retailcenter will close off Gorham Avenue between San Vicente and Barrington.

As a longtime resident of Brentwood, I have already experienced the increased traffic brought on byBrentwood Gardens and other such retail sites. Brentwood is a small, residential area, and has no needfor additional retail sites. Parking facilities are scarce. Montana Ave. is minutes away, and has plenty ofshops if one wishes to supplement the perfectly good variety of stores in Brentwood.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

For a response to a similar comment regarding traffic and parking, the reader is referred to Response toComment CLEMENSX-1. Comments regarding the “need” for the project do not address the sufficiencyof the DEIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15204.5(a)). Therefore, no further response is required. Thereader is referred to Topical Response 1.

COMMENT NO. SINGERX-2:

Finally, allowing the closure of a city street for personal profit sets a bad precedent for other developers.Please tell Pacific Equities to leave our streets alone!

RESPONSE: The application to vacate Gorham Avenue does not set a precedent. Requests for streetand alley vacations are occasionally made to the City. For a more complete discussion of the requestedGorham Avenue vacation, the reader is referred to Topical Response 4.

LETTER NO. STERNX

Evelyn SternLos Angeles, CA 90049-1909


COMMENT NO. STERNX-1:

Although I am a director of Brentwood Homeowners Association, I submit these comments for myselfonly. They have not been reviewed or approved by BHA.

Substantial opposition to this over-sized project, which you will hear about in other letters, will point,correctly, to the problems already extant in the vicinity of the site due to an over-concentration ofrestaurants in the area, many of which were permitted without an adequate amount of on-site parkingbeing required.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:



A Real Park. I agree with those community leaders who are asking that the developer give back to thecommunity the approximately 13,000 sq.ft. he acquires by closing Gorham Avenue and that it be givenback in the form of a park fronting on San Vicente Boulevard. The rectangle of grass of limitedlandscaping he proposes do not justify the appellation "The Park” which he has so shamelessly used toname his shopping mall.

RESPONSE:

The project applicant does not propose to develop the corner of the project site as a park. However, theproject will provide a public plaza of approximately 4,800 square feet, of which 2,668 square feet wouldbe lawn area. The project is also providing a water feature at the corner that consists of a series of poolsthat flow together. The reader is also referred to Response to Comment MISCISKOWSKI-1. Afterconsidering both the area added to the project site due to the requested street vacation, and the area lostdue to required street dedications, there is actually a net loss of approximately 4,000 square feet to theproject site. For further information, the reader is referred to Response to Comment DITLOWX-1.


Alternative Projects. As discussed at length in the letter submitted by the Brentwood CommunityCouncil, most of the alternatives presented are invalid because the wrong code sections are used todetermine FAR and critical restrictions imposed by the San Vicente Scenic Corridor Specific Plan("SVSCSP") have been ignored.

For instance, alternative 2 (no street closure) assumes the same 54,700 sq.ft. proposed for a project inwhich Gorham will be closed could be put on the existing parcels without closing Gorham, resulting in anFAR of 1.9:1 and deeper subterranean parking. [DEIR page VI-7] Are these assumptions reasonable?Would such a project be economically feasible? The resulting FAR of 1.9:1 would not even be possiblesince the zoning only allows 1.5:1. The height limit would be exceeded.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The Brentwood Community Council letter is included as Comment Letter KRISILOFFX. The reader isspecifically referred to Responses to Comments KRISILOFFX-2 through KRISILOFFX-10.

The purpose of the alternative’s analysis is to provide the decision-makers with a comparison of thephysical impacts on the environment between the proposed project and the alternatives. Since, CEQAdoes not apply to economic feasibility, the commenter’s question regarding economic feasibility is notrelevant. The project site is subject to the Mini-Shopping Centers and Commercial Corner DevelopmentRegulations (LAMC 12.22.A23), which limit the FAR to 1.5:1. While the proposed project is consistentwith this FAR requirement, Alternative 2 (with a FAR of 1.9:1) would exceed the FAR restriction. Aswith the proposed project, Alternative 2 would require a variance to exceed the 40-foot height limit.


Height. The developer should not be permitted a height over 40 feet (a 48-ft. height is proposed). 40 feetis the limit imposed by the "Commercial Corner Development” statute (L.A.M.C. section 12.22A(23))which applies in this case.

The 40-foot height limit is undoubtedly intended to provide a transitional zone between commercial andresidential projects and protect adjoining residential zones from being overpowered by over-heightstructures. The emphasis the city planners place on preserving this transition zone is reflected by thestatute setting forth the criteria that apply to the Conditional Use Permit the developer must obtain in thiscase, L.A.M.C. section 12.24C56, by withholding from the Zoning Administrator the authority to approvea structure in excess of 40 feet.

RESPONSE:

The commenter is correct that the Commercial Corner Development statute imposes a 40-foot height limiton the project site. For that reason, the project applicant is requesting a zone variance to permit proposedbuilding heights in excess of that limit.

The reader should be aware that L.A.M.C. Section 12.24C56 has been deleted and replaced by Section12.24W27. However, the commenter is correct that Section 12.24W27(a) indicates that “…no building orstructure shall exceed a maximum height of 40 feet.”


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


Findings. The findings set forth at L.A.M.C. section 12,21C56 cannot be made, in particular, (1) that theCommercial Corner Development use is consistent with the public welfare and safety, (2) that access,ingress and egress to the Commercial Corner Development will not constitute a traffic hazard or causesignificant traffic congestion or disruption of vehicular circulation on adjacent streets based on dataprovided by the City DOT or a licensed traffic engineer; and (4) that the Commercial CornerDevelopment is not located in an identified pedestrian oriented area or zone or, if so, the CommercialCorner Development would not have an adverse impact on the pedestrian oriented area or zone.

RESPONSE:

(1) The proposed project is consistent with the public welfare and safety because it improves trafficconditions at the Gorham/Barrington and Barrington/San Vicente intersections. These intersections areheavily congested during peak traffic periods, and that congestion combined with poor lines-of-sight haveresulted in numerous traffic accidents (see Section V, Corrections and Additions, for a history of trafficaccidents at the Gorham Avenue/Barrington Street). See Topical Response 8 for a discussion of theimproved traffic conditions resulting from the proposed vacation of Gorham Avenue in combination withthe implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. (2) As discussed in Topical Response 10 theproject will not constitute traffic hazards or cause significant traffic congestion or disruption of vehicularcirculation on adjacent streets due to site access, ingress or egress, based upon LADOT’s preliminaryapproval of the site access scheme stated in a letter dated July 26, 2000 (see Comment Letter TAMX).(4) The project will not have an adverse impact on the pedestrian oriented area or zone because (a) it willbe subject to the applicable design standards of the Specific Plan Design Guidelines; (b) it will add to andenhance the existing pedestrian street activity by providing a landscaped public gathering space enlivenedwith a water feature; and (c) pedestrian access will be maintained and enhanced via a series of walkwaysand terraces internal to the project site as well as along sidewalks on its perimeter adjacent to BarringtonAvenue and San Vicente boulevard.


Findings (1) and (2) cannot be satisfied because of the severe traffic impacts generated by the project(e.g., over 4,000 vehicle trips per day) and the location of both the vehicular entrance and exit on SanVicente Boulevard immediately adjacent to a similar arrangement at the supermarket next door. Finding(4) falls because the SVSCSP has as a goal making San Vicente Boulevard a pedestrian oriented area.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

As the DEIR states, "Pedestrian volumes near the projects are among the highest on the Westside." [DEIRpage IVF-1] The need to enhance pedestrian movement, access and amenities in the Brentwood shoppingcorridor on San Vicente Boulevard is paramount.

RESPONSE:

The project will increase net site traffic generation by 2,312 vehicle trips per day (see DEIR, Table IV.F-9on page IV.F-20). Several commenters have raised concerns regarding project traffic patterns and siteaccess. Accordingly, a topical response has been prepared for these comments. The reader is referred toTopical Response 10.


The proposed driveway location will not be combined with the existing driveway serving the WholeFoods market. Appropriate separation will be provided between the Whole Foods driveway and theproject driveway, as determined by Los Angleles Department of Transportation (LADOT) in their finalreview and approval of the site access scheme, a necessary prerequisite to the issuance of buildingpermits. At present the project is designed for a 15-foot separation between the project driveway and theone-way, exit-only driveway from Whole Foods Market. (See Figure FEIR-13.) The LADOT guidelinesrecommend a 50-foot separation between driveways. However, in this case such a distance is notessential, and could present operational problems.

First, due to the one-way nature of both San Vicente Boulevard and the Whole Foods Market exitdriveway, there is far less potential for conflicts between the two driveways. All cars entering the projectdriveway will be turning right from San Vicente Boulevard, or traveling straight through the signal at thecorner of Gorham and San Vicente. Cars exiting Whole Foods Market, on the other hand, must turn rightonto San Vicente Boulevard. Accordingly, there is no potential for conflict between cars entering theproject and cars exiting Whole Foods Market. As to cars exiting the project, these cars make only onetype of a movement – a right-hand turn – and such drivers will have full visibility of cars exiting theWhole Foods Market driveway. Similarly, because cars exiting Whole Foods Market have only theoption of a right turn onto San Vicente Boulevard, in making such a turn they will have excellentvisibility of cars leaving the project driveway. Hence, the potential for conflict is reduced over a scenarioin which cars are entering and exiting from a two-way street.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

Second, the movement of the project driveway westward toward Barrington Avenue would presentoperational problems. It would take the project driveway out of alignment with Gorham Avenue, therebyinterfering with the coordinated signalization with the terminus of that street. In addition, such amovement would violate good engineering practice; the project driveway is already relatively close toBarrington Avenue, and LADOT favors reasonable spacing of signals.

For these reasons, LADOT has provided preliminary approval in their letter dated July 26, 2000 to allowa smaller distance between the project driveway and the Whole Foods Market driveway. However, itshould be emphasized that LADOT will have to give approval for any final plans, as the project cannotreceive a building permit without final approval from LADOT.

As to the width of the project driveway, the LADOT letter notes their recommendation that the projectdriveway on San Vicente Boulevard be 30 feet in width, which is the standard width of a commercialdriveway. By comparison, pedestrians along the north side of San Vicente Boulevard in the area of theproposed project driveway must currently cross the north leg of Gorham Avenue, which due to theskewed angle of the intersection, requires a crossing that is approximately 110 feet. Thus, with thedevelopment of the project and the closure of the north leg of Gorham Avenue, pedestrian movementswill be improved by reducing the crossing distance from 110 feet to 30 feet.


It is highly questionable whether Brentwood needs another 10,000 sq.ft. of restaurants, as proposed here.Does Brentwood need to become another "shopping destination” with all the same major retailers allother shopping malls have (because locally-owned stores cannot usually meet the rents charged in malls)?Should San Vicente Boulevard become another Montana Avenue, Santa Monica mal1 or WestsidePavilion? My answer to these questions is "No." We don’t need more of the same.

For some years in the 1980s San Vicente was threatened with the same problem. As the rents went up,Mom-and-Pop concerns providing everyday services were run out. For some years there was noshoemaker on the boulevard. Another example is the recent announcement that, after a 25 year hiatus,Westwood will finally have a supermarket again. The goal of the SVSCSP is to encourage and preservean area which can continue to meet residents’ everyday needs with a mix of higher end shops and offices.

RESPONSE:

The commenter’s questions regarding “Brentwood’s” needs do not address the sufficiency of the DEIR(CEQA Guidelines Section 15204.5(a)). Therefore, no further response is required. The commenter isreferred to Topical Response 1.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


Open Space. Another defect in the DEIR is that the amount of open space required of the developer, acalculation governed by the provisions of the SVSCSP, cannot be determined because the developer hassteadfastly refused, even in response to personal requests, to provide the numbers needed to make thecalculation.

RESPONSE:

There seems to be confusion between the Open Space as required by the SVSCSP and the public plaza onthe first level that will be provided within said Open Space. The public plaza will be approximately 2,772square feet. In addition, the project will provide a total of approximately 10,638 square feet of publiclyaccessible hardscaped and landscaped areas at sidewalk grade and on the second floor, for a total ofapproximately 13,400 square feet of publicly accessible open space. The required Open Space atsidewalk grade is approximately 1,250 square feet (5 times the frontage of approximately 250 feet). Theactual Open Space at sidewalk grade (limited by Section 8.A. to the first 20 feet from San Vicente),includes a portion of the public plaza, and a portion of the surrounding hardscaped/landscaped area, for atotal of approximately 4,150 square feet (i.e., more than 3 times the required amount). Furthermore, theadditional open space of approximately 9,250 square feet (consisting of the remainder of the hardscapedand landscaped areas at sidewalk grade, as well as additional open space on the second floor) is also morethan 2 times the required Additional Open Space of 3,750 square feet (15 times 250 feet).


Alley. The alley north of the site must be widened considerably more than the 2.5 ft. proposed. [DEIRpage III-10] The alley carries a considerable amount of traffic already inasmuch as it furnishes the onlyaccess and exit route to parking for tenants of buildings, both residential and office, which back on thealley. It also provides an alternate access and exit route for the supermarket’s customers and deliverytrucks. The alley should be widened to a minimum width of 20 feet.

RESPONSE:

A description of the proposed site access configuration at the project is provided in the DEIR in SectionIII, Project Description and in Section IV.F, Transportation/Circulation. As discussed on page III-10,access for delivery vehicles serving the project is proposed via the alley along the north edge of theproject site. All other vehicles associated with the project will utilize the project driveway located on San


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

Vicente Boulevard west of Barrington Avenue. Therefore, the only trips generated by the project on thealley are expected to be delivery vehicles. Utilization of the alley for access by project service vehicles isappropriate and consistent with the access scheme at other commercial developments in the projectvicinity as noted by the commenter.



Finally, the Los Angeles Fire Department requires that the alley be a minimum of 20 feet in width.Additional improvements to the alley, beyond the required 2.5 foot wide dedication and wideningprovided by the project, are not required.


Parking. No parking plan has been included in the DEIR. The numbers and discussion are internallyinconsistent and exceedingly vague. [DEIR pages 1-2, 1-7, III-4, IVF-37-38] Past projects proposed forthe same site by the same developer had to have tandem (valet) parking at all times. Thus one suspects thesame situation applies again, although this is not revealed in the DEIR. Prospective mall customers maybe discouraged by tandem parking and parking fees from parking on site, thus increasing the burden onnearby residential streets.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Topical Response 7 regarding the adequacy of the project’s proposed on-siteparking. Valet parking will be provided for all patrons, at a rate commensurate with the market rate in thesurrounding area. It is unlikely that any substantial number of patrons will seek to avoid this charge byparking on nearby residential streets.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

The project’s projections of on-site parking do not include tandem spaces. However, some additionaltandem spaces for valet parking purposes may be provided in excess of that required by the Los AngelesMunicipal Code. Such spaces are permitted to be provided under the Los Angeles Municipal Code.Therefore, the provision for tandem parking spaces at the project, if incorporated into the final design andapproved by the Department of Building and Safety, would not result in an adverse impact to parking.


Because nearby residential streets are already over-burdened by parking by employees of San Vicenteestablishments, it is essential that all project employees’ can be accommodated in the garage and adequateincentives given by employers to encourage employees to use public transportation. Leases should requireemployers to reimburse employees for cost of bus fares/passes and off-street parking in other structureson San Vicente. The developer and employers should also be required to make arrangements foremployees to park on the nearby Veterans Administration grounds.

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment STERNX-10 regarding the parking analysis provided in the DEIR. Since theproject will provide parking consistent with the Los Angeles Municipal Code and no significant impactrelative to parking has been identified, the provision for off-site parking is not required as a mitigationmeasure. Nevertheless, the project applicant will require all lessees to provide parking to employeeseither on-site, or at a suitable alternative location, such as at the Veterans Administration or elsewhere.For more discussion of the adequacy of parking for the project, see Topical Response 7 (Adequacy ofProposed Parking).


While the developer claims all employees will be able to park on site, the numbers, once again, do notappear realistic. [DEIR page III-10] It is stated there would be only 65 employees for the restaurant andretail uses. No estimate of the number of office employees is given.

Is 65 a realistic number for 42,700 sq.ft. of restaurant and retail use? According to the DEIR, the standardfor retail use apparently is 1 employee per 750 sq.ft; an even more conservative calculation is 1 per 500sq.ft [DEIR page IVE-15] Using the latter standard, there would be 85 employees for the proposed 42,700sq.ft. of restaurant and retail use. (And we still don’t know about office employees or for other scenariosof use, e.g., more office than retail.)


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

Several commenters have raised concerns regarding the adequacy of the project’s proposed on-siteparking. Accordingly, a topical response has been prepared for these comments. The reader is referred toTopical Response 7. As noted in that topical response, the 275 parking spaces projected to be containedin the on-site underground parking structure are adequate to satisfy the LAMC parking requirements,which includes the anticipated parking generated by employees, visitors/patrons, and service vehicles.Thus, no impacts related to parking at the project are anticipated.


Vehicular Access. The problems inherent in the developer’s current plans for ingress and egress areemphasized in the suggestions for how traffic shall access the mall: either (1) “right-in, right-out only”;i.e., closing the opening in the median at Gorham and forcing eastbound San Vicente/Gorham traffic tomake a U-turn at Barrington and circle back to the mall or (2) preserving the median opening andallowing eastbound San Vicente traffic to make left turns into the mall, allowing left turns onto Gorham(southbound) for westbound traffic on San Vicente; and restricting vehicles exiting the garage to right-turns only [DEIR pages III-9-10, IVF-24-25] Other means of ingress and egress should be studied. Forinstance, ingress might be by means of a driveway on San Vicente while vehicles could exit on to the(appropriately widened) alley.

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment STERNX-6 for a discussion of the formulation of the project site accessscheme.


Utility Lines. Utility lines should be placed underground. The SVCSP, section 15, requiresundergrounding utility lines “at no cost to the City of Los Angeles” as does L.A.M.C. section 12.22A(23).

RESPONSE:

Section 14 of the San Vicente Scenic Corridor Specific Plan requires new projects to place utility linesunderground, at no cost to the City. However, a preliminary investigation of the under-grounding ofutilities conducted by the DWP indicates that the utilities in front of the project site could not be under-


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

grounded alone, but only in conjunction with the under-grounding of all utilities from the alley south ofMontana to the alley south of Darlington. The project applicant has indicated its willingness to pay itsproportionate cost of the under-grounding if the City decides to underground all of the utilities.


Noise. The project will generate a lot of noise; it proposes to operate 18 ½ hours a day, from 6 a.m. to12:30 a.m. Deliveries, slated to take place in the alley and therefore close to residential uses, should belimited to 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Mondays through Fridays.

RESPONSE:

The noise impact was analyzed for a typical daily operation of the proposed project, which takes intoaccount business hours extending from 6:00 am to 12:30 am. As indicated on Table IV.I-6 of the DEIR,noise sources associated with the proposed project including auto traffic, the outdoor seating area,building mechanical equipment, the parking structure, and the loading dock have been analyzed. Thenoise analysis includes the project-related auto traffic in and out of the parking structure from 10:00 pm to1:00 am. Based on the proposed project layout, the entrance and exit to the parking structure is from SanVicente Boulevard, which is shielded from the resident locations. A maximum increase of 2 CNEL overthe existing ambient noise can be expected due to the proposed project. This increase in noise level is notconsidered a significant noise impact.

As provided in the DEIR (page IV.I-14), deliveries shall be limited to the daytime hours of 9 a.m. and 5p.m.


Traffic. I am aware of the comments on the traffic study submitted by Brentwood HomeownersAssociation and the Brentwood Community Council and concur in them. I would like to make thefollowing comments in addition:

The traffic counts were done in late 1998 so why is "1999" constantly used in table captions and text?[DEIR pages IVF-4, App. E, p.9]


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

Page IV.F-4 correctly indicates the traffic counts were conducted in 1998. The DEIR text is herebyrevised to correct any typographical errors that inadvertently refer to the existing traffic counts as “1999”rather than “1998”. See Corrections and Additions 5 through 9.


Projections of future traffic are underestimated because numerous Brentwood developments were ignoredand 5 of the 7 projects used in the projections are more than a mile away. [DEIR page IVF-11]

RESPONSE:

Several commenters have suggested that other projects should be included in the project’s list of relatedprojects. Accordingly, a topical response has been prepared for these comments. The reader is referred toTopical Response 6.


AM. and P.M. peak hours are nowhere defined. I could find no reference at all to which hours are beingused. It is essential to know this because the hours may or may not be relevant to the times whenshopping malls draw traffic and, of course, because all conclusions regarding the mall’s impact on trafficdepend on the peak-hour data.

RESPONSE:

A discussion of the traffic study methodology is provided in the DEIR on pages IV.F-16 through IV.F-18.Traffic studies are typically conducted by analyzing the highest hour of traffic at area intersections so asto provide a conservative assessment of traffic conditions. LADOT required the analysis of the weekdayAM and PM peak hour commuter hours as these periods represent the times of greatest background trafficgrowth and thus, the greatest potential for the project to contribute significant traffic impacts. Todetermine the peak hour, LADOT generally requires that traffic counts be conducted on weekdays at7:00-10:00 AM, and 3:00-6:00 PM.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


As all Brentwood residents know, the streets are already at peak capacity. San Vicente at Barringtoncarries 35,000 vehicles per day; 1,500 vehicles per hour eastbound and 900 vehicles per hour westboundin A.M.; 1,100 vehicles per hour westbound and 1,300 vehicles per hour eastbound in P.M. [DEIR pageIVF-5] (Totals in A.M. and P.M. peak hours happen to both be 2,400 vehicles per hour.) Note that if thisvolume of traffic per hour is kept up for 10 hours, the total per day would only be 24,000. The 35,000-vehicles-per-day figure obtained means the “peak” traffic volume goes on for at least 14.5 hours each day.

Thus, every hour is congested on San Vicente at Barrington.

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment STERNX-18 regarding determination of the peak hours used in the trafficanalysis. The selection of a peak hour for traffic analysis purposes does not imply that congestion is notevident at some locations outside of a one hour time frame.


Barrington Avenue carries 12,000 vehicles per day and Gorham Avenue carries 6,000 vehicles per day.[IVF-5]

The number of vehicles per day on Gorham is 50% of that of Barrington. All these vehicles will bedumped onto San Vicente and Barrington both since Gorham serves principally as a connector betweenSan Vicente and Barrington. The data (see immediately below) shows that less than a third of the trafficon Gorham between Barrington and San Vicente continues on Gorham.

Projections were done by distributing the Gorham vehicles between Barrington and San Vicente. I wouldargue that a substantial proportion of the Gorham vehicles have to be counted on BOTH Barrington andSan Vicente because they are vehicles that either come from San Vicente to access Barrington or fromBarrington to access San Vicente. The actual figures (taken from Figures 3a and 3b) are

� AM peak hour: of 119 vehicles approaching Barrington on Gorham eastbound, 83 (70%) turnleft up Barrington, 19(16%) turn right and 17 (14%) continue on Gorham

� AM peak hour: of 104 vehicles approaching San Vicente on Gorham westbound, 17(16%)turn left to go east on San Vicente, 54(52%) turn right to go west on San Vicente and 33(32%) continue on Gorham


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

� PM peak hour: of 137 vehicles approaching Barrington on Gorham eastbound, 107(78%) turnleft up Barrington, 9(7%) turn right and 21 (15%) continue on Gorham

� PM peak hour: of 145 vehicles approaching San Vicente on Gorham westbound, 3 (2%) turnleft to go east on San Vicente, 102 (70%) turn right to go west on San Vicente and 40(28%)continue on Gorham.

The immediately foregoing means that, with Gorham closed, during the A.M. peak hour there would be119 vehicles added to eastbound San Vicente traffic, 70% of which would want to go north onBarrington, etc.

RESPONSE:

The analysis of potential project related traffic impacts are described in the DEIR in Section IV.F,Transportation/Circulation and are summarized on Table IV.F-11, page IV.F-35 of the DEIR. The projectimpacts consider the potential net new trips due to the proposed commercial development, as well as thererouting of existing trips on the local street system as a result of the proposed closure of Gorham Avenuebetween Barrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. See pages IV.F-25 through IV.F-28 of theDEIR for a discussion of the Gorham Avenue closure traffic analysis.


The plan for widening Barrington is not clear. At one place the DEIR states it is to be widened to provideleft turn lanes plus 2 through lanes in each direction at San Vicente [ DEIR. pages IVF-14-15] andelsewhere Barrington is said to have only one through lane [DEIR page IVF-39].

RESPONSE:

The project mitigation measure referenced by the commenter is summarized in the DEIR on page IV.F-39. The improvement is also discussed in the July 26, 2000 LADOT letter which provides a summary ofthe project traffic impacts and recommended mitigation measures (see Comment Letter TAMX).Specifically, the project is required to dedicate 15 feet of property along the project’s Barrington Avenuefrontage and widen Barrington Avenue by 15 feet. The improvement allows for the southboundBarrington Avenue approach to the San Vicente Boulevard intersection to be restriped to provide threelanes: one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

The section in the DEIR referenced by the commenter (pages IV.F-15 through IV.F-16) discuss theCapital Improvement Program (CIP) project proposed by the City of Los Angeles for Barrington Avenueat San Vicente Boulevard. The CIP project proposes to provide two through lanes in each direction onBarrington Avenue. There currently is insufficient public right-of-way, however, to implement the City’sCIP project for Barrington Avenue.


One of the most cynical uses of statistics seen in a long time is the very creative 40% "pass-by" factorapplied to the estimates. Crain & Associates, the developer’s traffic consultants, assumed that 40% oftrips to the mall are in fact part of a trip to another destination and therefore do not count. [DEIR pageIVF-19] There is no data given to validate the assumption. It is outrageous to underestimate the traffic by40%.

A shopping center with numerous restaurants is more likely to be a final destination as compared with,say, the dry cleaners' shop. If you stop at the shopping center for dinner for an hour or so on your wayhome from the office, is that a "pass-by" trip?

The 40% decrease means that, instead of having to plug a much larger estimate of daily trips into theequations, the developer can pretend vehicle trips generated by the mall will be 2,312. Without the 40%kickback, that figure would be 3,856 1,500 cars more! [IV-F-20; App. E, Table 5, p.22]

Subtracting 40% results in similar startling reductions in A.M. and P.M. peak hour trips: 33, 21, 102, 110instead of respectively, 55, 35, 170, 184. [DEIR pages IV-F-20 App. E, Table 5, p.22]

One of the results of this cynical sleight-of-hand is, for instance, that the Montana/San Vicenteintersection is kept, on paper at least, at a “C” to P.M. Level of Service. One has to assume it would bemuch lower if they had to throw 40% of the trips back into the arithmetic. Montana and Bundy is kept at98% of Capacity in the AM. — it would clearly be gridlocked, “F LOS”, if the 40% was included. [DEIRpages IVF-35; App. E, Table 11, p. 52]

RESPONSE:

The trip generation forecast for the project is described in the DEIR on pages IV.F-18 through IV.F-20.Table IV.F-9 provides a summary of the project trip generation forecast. As stated in the DEIR, the triprates used to forecast the project trip generation are based on the “Shopping Center” land use. The TripGeneration manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, provides trip rates forforecasting trips generated by Shopping Centers and LADOT has adopted these trip rates for use in traffic


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

studies. In addition, the Trip Generation manual has documented the pass-by trip factor characteristic atShopping Centers. The pass-by factor notes that a significant number of Shopping Center patrons aremotorists already on the street system that visit the site as part of primary trip (e.g., work-to-home).Substantial research conducted by the Institute of Transportation Engineers indicates that for ShoppingCenters similar to the size of the proposed project, a pass-by factor of 40% can be expected. LADOT hasadopted the recommendations provided in the Trip Generation manual for purposes of forecasting pass-by trips.


There are a number of incorrect statements in the traffic study. The Gorham closure is said to amelioratetraffic flow because it removes a “key congestion point,” that is, the unsignalized Gorham/Barringtonintersection. [DEIR page IVF-36] This is not true. The current congestion ON Gorham does NOT impedeflow on Barrington (and certainly not on San Vicente) because drivers on Gorham almost always waituntil Barrington is clear (or so congested its not moving) before pulling into the intersection.

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment STERNX-20 for a discussion of the analysis of potential project related trafficimpacts which consider the potential net new trips due to the proposed commercial development, as wellas the rerouting of existing trips on the local street system as a result of the proposed closure of GorhamAvenue between Barrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. As shown in Tables IV.F-11 and IV.F-12, potential project related traffic impacts (i.e., due to the commercial project and the Gorham Avenueclosure) are forecasted to be less than significant.


The DEIR provides an analysis of a project alternative whereby the section of Gorham Avenue betweenBarrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard would remain open (Alternative 2: No Closure of GorhamAvenue). See Section VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project, page VI-7.

The DEIR concludes that the retention of Gorham Avenue analyzed in Alternative 2 would result intraffic conditions that are less safe and more confusing as compared to the project. This is primarily the


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

result of the Barrington Avenue street dedication and widening requirements of LADOT as outlined intheir letter. If Gorham Avenue were not closed, the tangential curbline separating the San VicenteBoulevard and Gorham Avenue intersections along the west side of Barrington Avenue, (afterimplementation the project widening of Barrington Avenue by 15 feet, as well as the improvements to thecurb return radius at the northwest corner of the Barrington Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard intersection),would be completely eliminated (i.e., the intersections would be adjacent to each other). See Figure FEIR-2 in Section V, Corrections and Additions.

Without the street closure, it is anticipated that LADOT would severely restrict access to Gorham Avenueto eliminate potentially hazardous conditions to motorists and pedestrians. Thus, if Gorham Avenue werenot closed as part of the project, it can be anticipated that LADOT would, at a minimum, convert thesection of Gorham Avenue between Barrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard to a one-waywestbound street. Further, movements onto the Gorham Avenue segment would be restricted to right-turns only from southbound Barrington Avenue. In effect, Gorham Avenue would become an elongatedright-turn lane from southbound Barrington Avenue to westbound San Vicente Boulevard. Thisconfiguration presents even further problems due to vehicle-pedestrian conflicts as vehicles turn rightfrom Barrington Avenue to Gorham Avenue, and right again from Gorham to San Vicente Boulevard.

Thus, the closure of Gorham Avenue as part of the project is an opportunity, and not a constraint to trafficoperations and safety. The DEIR, and the LADOT letter, conclude that traffic conditions on BarringtonAvenue and San Vicente Boulevard will improve, and not degrade, as a result of the combination of theproposed commercial project, the closure of Gorham Avenue and the implementation of therecommended traffic mitigation measures.


The developer contends, "Many vehicles currently utilizing Gorham Avenue between San VicenteBoulevard and Barrington Avenue are accessing existing uses at the project site." [DEIR page IVF-36] Idoubt a large percentage of drivers using Gorham are going to The Woods or Starbucks. Where is the datafor such a statement? This and other statements on the same page about how traffic at Barrington and SanVicente will likely improve rather than get worse are false and misleading, based, as they are, onpurposely underestimated projections or, in some instances, no supporting data at all.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment STERNX-20 for a discussion of the analysis of potential project related trafficimpacts which consider the potential net new trips due to the proposed commercial development, as wellas the rerouting of existing trips on the local street system as a result of the proposed closure of GorhamAvenue between Barrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. As shown in Tables IV.F-11 and IV.F-12, potential project related traffic impacts (i.e., due to the commercial project and the Gorham Avenueclosure) are forecasted to be less than significant. In fact, as shown in Table IV.F-12, conditions at theBarrington Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard are calculated to improve with implementation of therecommended traffic mitigation measures as compared to the future pre-project condition.

See Response to Comment STERNX-22 for a discussion of the trip generation methodology. The tripgeneration forecast includes an estimate of the existing trip generation characteristics of the current on-site uses. Since the current off-street parking for these uses is primarily accessed off of Gorham Avenue,these trips would be eliminated with redevelopment of the site.

The statement in the DEIR noted by the commenter is intended to note that a portion of the traffic usingGorham Avenue between San Vicente Boulevard and Gorham Avenue is generated by the existingcommercial uses along Gorham Avenue which will be removed as part of the proposed project. Forpurposes of quantifying the effect on traffic associated with the removal of the existing on-sitecommercial uses, LADOT required the use of standard trip generation rates as published in the ITE TripGeneration manual. A discussion of the trip generation methodology for purposes of estimating thecurrent number of trips generated by the existing on-site land uses is found in the DEIR beginning onpage IV.F-18.


The DEIR should be redone, addressing the objections and deficiencies alluded to above. Thank you foryour attention.

RESPONSE:

This EIR provides responses to each of the commenter’s concerns (see Responses to STERNX-1 throughSTERNX-24). No new significant information or impacts have been identified as a result of thiscomment and response process. Therefore, the DEIR does not need to be recirculated (CEQA GuidelinesSection 15088.5). For an additional discussion regarding when an EIR must be recirculated, the reader isreferred to Topical Response 3.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

LETTER NO. BEITLERX

Barry Beitler825 S. Barrington AvenueLos Angeles, CA 90049


COMMENT NO. BEITLERX-1:

This letter is In response to your Request For Comments to the Notice of Completion and Availability ofDraft Environmental Impact Report No. EIR-98-0334 for the property located at 17111 San VicenteBoulevard in Brentwood, California.

For reference purposes, I own the 3-story office building directly to the north (across the alley) from thesubject property. Therefore, other than Whole Foods, which is also adjacent and stands to lose parkingand gain massive ingress and egress problems, this development probably affects me more than any othersource.

Let me also state that I am a real estate developer, so I am aware of what the developer can build by rightand how difficult a development project is. However, I have never seen a venture where the City wouldgive up a street as important as Gorham for no monetary compensation to aid such a development. Iassure you that the people of Brentwood do not want this development at this corner and do not want suchan important thoroughfare as Gorham closed. From what I am told, this development will create such ahotbed of community revolt over this political football that the Archer School controversy will look mild.

RESPONSE:

As discussed in Topical Response 4, applications for street vacations are common in the City of LosAngeles, as provided for by the California Public Streets, Highways and Service Easements Vacation Law(Cal. Sts. & High. Code §§ 8300 et. seq.). However, the City does not require monetary compensation asone of the factors to be taken into consideration when reviewing such an application.

As to the potential for “community revolt,” community opposition is a factor to be considered in thepolitical process and does not bear on the sufficiency of the DEIR. (CEQA Guidelines Section15204.5(a)). Therefore, no further response is required on this point. The commenter is referred toTopical Response 1.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


First and foremost, let me start with the EIR and explain why it wasn’t properly undertaken:

� The study does not take into account the new construction projects recently undertaken in thearea. There has been tremendous recent development activity, mostly residential, in theimmediate area (i.e., Montana and Barrington, Westgate and Montana, etc.) that was not evenmentioned in the EIR Report. Instead, the Report mentions developments that are distinctlydifferent markets in nature and not close to the subject property (i.e., office building atOlympic and Bundy, condominiums between Westwood and Beverly Hills, Gayley, andWeyburn retail, etc.). The people of Brentwood are concerned (as the EIR should have been)about closer in developments; none of which are taken into account other than the ArcherSchool — an existing approved project

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Topical Response 6 for a detailed discussion of related projects and theevaluation of cumulative impacts. In brief, a discussion of related projects is provided in the DEIR inSection II.B, Related Projects, beginning on page II-5. Table II-1, page II-6 of the DEIR provides a list ofthe related projects, which are also shown by location on Figure II-3, page II-7. The methodology forforecasting future traffic attributed to the related projects is discussed in IV.F, Transportation/Circulationbeginning on page IV.F-10. As discussed in Section II.B, the list of related projects was assembled inaccordance with standards set forth in the State CEQA Guidelines. Data regarding related projects wasprovided to the DEIR preparers in March, 1999 by the Los Angeles Department of City Planning, the LosAngeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), and the City of Santa Monica. The related projectswere verified based on field observations and were approved for use in the DEIR by the City of LosAngeles.

Current development projects identified in the project area which were not included in the list of relatedprojects provided in the DEIR will add a relatively small number of new trips to the local street system.These additional trips are adequately accounted for by the annual traffic growth factor applied to theexisting traffic counts, which is used in the DEIR traffic analysis to forecast future traffic conditions, inaddition to the future traffic that may be generated by the related projects identified in the DEIR. Thus,the DEIR provides a sufficiently conservative forecast of the future pre-project traffic volumes on thelocal street system.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


Please Note: The Westwood Marketplace development quoted states the southwest corner of Weyburnand Gayley which is incorrect — it is actually the southeast corner that is proposed.

RESPONSE:

This revision to Table II-1 of the DEIR (Related Projects) has been made in the Corrections andAdditions section.


� The underground 275 parking spaces proposed is highly inadequate, especially since thedeveloper states that all employee parking will be in the project and no parking will spill outto the residential streets. As it further states that there will be approximately 10,000 squarefeet of restaurants (I'll bet there’s more), I believe the parking ratios for new restaurants inLos Angeles to be 10 cars pr 1000 square feet. Let's say, for example, that the employeesalone for restaurants, retail, and office of 54,700 square feet use only 3.5 cars per 1,000square feet, which will be too light, almost 200 of the underground spaces will be employeesonly. With or without valet, there won't be enough parking for customers, especially withrestaurants, meaning the residential streets will be filled.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Topical Response 7 for a detailed discussion regarding the adequacy of theproject’s proposed parking.

Issues related to parking at the project are discussed in the DEIR in Section III, Project Description, andin Section IV.F, Transportation/Circulation. As discussed on page III-3, the project will provide 54,700square feet of commercial floor area. The primary use is expected to be retail (42,700 square feet), withthe potential for office space (2,000 square feet) and restaurant space (10,000 square feet) to also beprovided. Approximately 275 on-site parking spaces are projected to be contained in the undergroundparking structure.

As discussed on page IV.F-37, the project will provide parking on-site in accordance with the LosAngeles Municipal Code (LAMC). The LAMC provides parking rates for retail, office and restaurantuses which consider the peak parking demands for all site users (employees, visitors/patrons, servicevehicles, etc.). The following LAMC parking rates would apply to the project as currently proposed:

o Retail: 42,700 square feet @ 1 space/250 square feet = 171 parking spaceso Office: 2,000 square feet @ 1 spaces/500 square feet = 4 parking spaces


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

o Restaurant: 10,000 square feet @ 1 space/100 square feet = 100 parking space

Therefore, as currently proposed, the 275 parking spaces projected to be contained in the on-siteunderground parking structure are adequate to satisfy the LAMC parking requirements, which includesthe anticipated parking generated by employees, visitors/patrons, and service vehicles. Thus, no impactsrelated to parking at the project are anticipated.

At such time final building plans are submitted for review by the City of Los Angeles, the Department ofBuilding and Safety will recalculate the project parking requirements based on the calculated floor areasand type of tenants. Further, it is customary that after build-out of the project that any building permitssought for tenant improvements result in a project-wide recalculation of the site parking requirements.

Alternatively, as discussed in the DEIR on page IV.F-38, office uses could (depending on marketconditions) occupy as much as 13,300 square feet of the project, with a corresponding reduction in retailuses. Using the same LAMC parking rates for retail, office and restaurant uses, this alternative wouldrequire 253 parking spaces, as shown below:



� Even with the Report stating that the entrance and exit will be only on San Vicente (directlynext to Whole Foods’ entrance and exit, which will cause a nightmare), it doesn’t addressentering cars backing up along San Vicente through the Barrington intersection. Take a lookat the backup up for Brentwood Gardens, which doesn’t affect an intersection, to see whatproblems this will cause.

RESPONSE:



_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

The project vehicular access scheme provides for a driveway located near the westerly site boundaryalong San Vicente Boulevard, in the approximate location of the existing north leg of Gorham Avenue.The location of the project driveway was selected in part to minimize potential adverse affects at theBarrington Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard intersection.

The project will provide three levels of subterranean parking. The valet service would utilize the upperlevels of the parking structure, while some or all employees would use lower levels for self-parking. Theproject parking control devices (i.e., the location where motorists would stop to receive a parking ticket)are expected to be located at the first subterranean level. This would result in approximately 120 feet ofon-site storage area (assuming an average 10% grade on the entry driveway and a 12 foot verticalseparation between street level and the first floor of subterranean parking) for vehicles to queue prior tothe parking control gate, thereby eliminating the potential for vehicles to queue onto San VicenteBoulevard. Therefore, no project impacts related to site access are anticipated.


� Any limit on nighttime noise, trash, and public drunkenness and abuse is not addressed. Mycommercial parking lot and building will suffer and these issues will forever burden theseresidents.

RESPONSE:

The commenter is not correct, the DEIR discusses noise impacts in Section IV.I (see pages IV.I-1 throughIV.I-14). Specially, the DEIR (page IV.I-14) includes the following limits on nighttime noise:

� Deliveries shall be limited to the daytime hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.

� Tenants shall not dump trash past 10 p.m.

� Valets shall not use the alleyway (at any time).

However, public drunkenness and abuse are law enforcement issues. They are societal ills neither createdby the proposed project nor subject to any noise limits the project might impose. Nevertheless, the noiseanalysis conducted for the proposed project, and reported in the DEIR, concludes that nighttime noisefrom the project’s operational activities would not be significant (page IV.I-14).

As discussed in Response to Comment MINASSINX-24, only vans and small truck would use the alleyand the loading docks for deliveries. Large trucks will unload on San Vicente Boulevard. While existing


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

street parking limitations will restrict the unloading times for large trucks so as not to interfere with trafficon San Vicente Boulevard, it is anticipated that such deliveries could occur during non-restricted earlymorning hours, and possibly evening hours, too. Consequently, the above mentioned mitigation measurein DEIR erroneously gives the impression that all deliveries will be limited to the hours of 9 a.m. and 5p.m. This is not correct, only deliveries through the alley would be so restricted. Therefore, the DEIR ishereby revised to indicate that deliveries through the alley shall be limited to the daytime hours of 9 a.m.and 5 p.m. See Corrections and Additions No. 10.


� The proposed right turn lane southbound on Barrington is highly inadequate after 5:00 P.M.at night, you can’t get out of the alleys onto Barrington as they presently exist. This right turnpocket will back up traffic across the northern alleys and make the flow in and out virtuallyimpossible. The alleys are vitally important to this area and in many cases are the only meansof access to these properties.

RESPONSE:

The project mitigation measure referenced by the commenter is summarized in the DEIR on page IV.F-39. The improvement is also discussed in the July 26, 2000 LADOT letter which provides a summary ofthe project traffic impacts and recommended mitigation measures (see Comment Letter TAMX).Specifically, the project is required to dedicate 15 feet of property along the project’s Barrington Avenuefrontage and widen Barrington Avenue by 15 feet. The improvement allows for the southboundBarrington Avenue approach to the San Vicente Boulevard intersection to be restriped to provide threelanes: one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane.

Currently, the southbound Barrington Avenue approach provides only one lane to accommodate all threemovements. The existing provision for only a single lane of traffic, as well as the “keep clear” pavementmarkings at the existing Gorham Avenue intersection north of San Vicente Boulevard, results insouthbound Barrington Avenue traffic queuing past the intersection with the alley located along the northside of the project site during peak periods. It is anticipated that the project mitigation measures, whichinvolve the widening of Barrington Avenue and the restriping to provide three southbound travel lanes, aswell as the closure of Gorham Avenue, will substantially reduce the length of vehicle queues onsouthbound Barrington Avenue north of San Vicente Boulevard. Thus, operations at the intersection withthe alley and Barrington Avenue would improve, and not degrade as suggested by the commenter, withimplementation of the project traffic mitigation measures.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


� My building’s (825 S. Barrington Avenue) parking backs out on its southern side into thisalley. The EIR Report discusses trash and deliveries in the alley but fails to mention the crisisand inaccessibility, particularly to my commercial building, but also to the commercialtenants (Whole Foods and westward commercial tenants along San Vicente) and residentialtenants and owners in this alley.

RESPONSE:

See Topical Response 9 which provides a description of the proposed site access configuration at theproject. As discussed in that Topical Response, access for delivery vehicles serving the project isproposed via the alley along the north edge of the project site. All other vehicles associated with theproject will utilize the project driveway located on San Vicente Boulevard west of Barrington Avenue.Therefore, the only trips generated by the project on the alley are expected to be delivery vehicles.Utilization of the alley for access by project service vehicles is appropriate and consistent with the accessscheme at other commercial developments in the project vicinity as noted by the commenter. It is statedin the DEIR on page III-10 that the project is required to dedicate and improve the alley along the projectfrontage by 2.5 feet. This additional width will improve operations for all vehicles that currently utilizethe alley.


Additionally, the right turn exit traffic from the parking structure of the project trying to goeastbound will in most cases circumvent an eastern loop backwards through these alleys which donot need any more traffic. At the very least, eastbound traffic along Montana towards Barringtonwill increase greatly.

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment BEITLERX-5 for a discussion of the formulation of the project site accessscheme. See Response to Comment BEITLERX-8 for a discussion of the potential reduction of projectsite related trips using the alley along the north side of the site with the development of the project.

The driveways for many existing commercial developments located along San Vicente Boulevard inBrentwood are provided at mid-block locations in the area of the existing raised median. Therefore, right-turn only movements are permitted at most existing commercial driveways along San Vicente Boulevard.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

Thus, in lieu of left-turns out of commercial driveways, motorists are required to make u-turns at breaksin the median, or a series of right-turns around the block.

The project access, however, is proposed to be located on the north side of San Vicente Boulevard acrossfrom Gorham Avenue, an existing signalized location. The proposed reconfiguration of the raised medianon San Vicente Boulevard at the Gorham Avenue/project driveway intersection, as described in the DEIRon page IV.F-39 allows for left-turns to be completed at the project driveway, thereby reducing the needfor project related motorists to make u-turns at adjacent intersections, or right-turns around the block.

Figure IV.F-3, page IV.F-22 of the DEIR provides the forecasted percentage assignment of project trips atthe project driveway and adjacent study intersections. The project driveway, which will be located in thevicinity of the existing north leg of the Gorham Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard intersection, is proposedto be placed under traffic signal control and coordinated with the traffic signal at the proposed realignedintersection of Gorham Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. This will allow project trips exiting the siteto turn right onto westbound San Vicente Boulevard, or proceed to the proposed left-turn pocket at theGorham Avenue intersection, which will allow left-turns to southbound Gorham Avenue or u-turns fortraffic destined to eastbound San Vicente Boulevard.

To provide a conservative assessment of potential project-related impacts, the traffic analysis assumes aportion of exiting project trips will utilize the Gorham Avenue left-turn pocket for u-turns. It has alsobeen assumed that a portion of exiting project trips will complete a u-turn further west at the MontanaAvenue intersection and turn right around the block via Montana Avenue and Barrington Avenue. FigureIV.F-3 provides the following percentages of assigned exiting project trips: 22% are assumed to make au-turn at the Gorham Avenue intersection, 27% are assumed to make a u-turn at the Montana Avenueintersection, and 17% are assumed to turn right at Montana Avenue, then turn right again at BarringtonAvenue. Project trips potentially utilizing the east-west alley along the north side of the project site forcirculation is expected to be negligible due to characteristics of the alley including a relatively narrowtravel way (15 feet wide) and a high number of driveways, temporarily parked vehicles, etc., all of whichdiscourage the use of the alley for through traffic.



_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


� The EIR Report fails to mention the westbound Gorham traffic east of Barrington. BrentwoodGardens and Brentwood Square retail and office tenants use Gorham and the alleys to exit thecommercial compounds therein. Gorham, as it presently exists, allows the dispersal of thistraffic. Displacing Gorham at the project will cause immeasurable traffic nightmares notdiscussed or considered in the EIR Report at the easterly intersection of Gorham andBarrington.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Topical Response 8 for a discussion of the analysis of potential project relatedtraffic impacts which consider the potential net new trips due to the proposed development, as well as thererouting of existing trips on the local street system as a result of the proposed closure of Gorham Avenuebetween Barrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. As shown in Tables IV.F-11 and IV.F-12,potential project related traffic impacts (i.e., due to the proposed project and the Gorham Avenue closure)are forecasted to be less than significant.


� In the Brentwood Council Meeting of November 6, 2000, the developers discussed a newlane on Barrington south of San Vicente. Even with the partial taking of Coffee Bean andRosti’s outdoor dining, which is part of Brentwood’s charm, a right and left turn lane therewill immensely back up the straight across lane causing further congestion.

RESPONSE:

The recommended measures to mitigate significant traffic impacts due to the project are summarized inthe DEIR on pages IV.F-38 through IV.F-41. The traffic mitigation measures are also detailed in the July26, 2000 letter prepared by LADOT approving the traffic analysis prepared for the project that isincorporated into the DEIR (see Comment Letter TAMX).

The specific measure referenced by the commenter involves the widening of Barrington Avenue south ofSan Vicente Boulevard to provide three travel lanes for northbound Barrington Avenue traffic at the SanVicente Boulevard intersection: one lane for left-turns, one lane for through movements, and one lane forright-turns. Currently, only one lane is provided on the northbound Barrington Avenue approach to theSan Vicente Boulevard intersection. Thus, motorists turning left or right at the intersection disrupt thethrough travel movements as motorists must maneuver around the turning vehicles. By providing


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

separate lanes for left and right turning vehicles as recommended as part of the project traffic mitigationmeasures, the through motorists on northbound Barrington Avenue will be able to travel through theintersection with significantly less disruption as compared to current conditions. Table IV.F-12, pageIV.F-40 of the DEIR indicates that mitigation measures recommended at the Barrington Avenue/SanVicente Boulevard intersection not only mitigate the significant project-related traffic impacts at thislocation, but operations at the intersection will be better as compared to the pre-project (i.e., no project)condition.


� The charm of a market like Whole Foods will be destroyed. One need look no further than thesimilar access and exit patterns of Norton Plaza and Longs Drugs at Montana and SanVicente to see how severely cars coming [sic] and out of the same pocket (let alone trying togo straight across Gorham) will impact the area and create a traffic snarl and accidents.

RESPONSE:

The recommended measures to mitigate significant traffic impacts due to the project are summarized inthe DEIR on pages IV.F-38 through IV.F-41. The traffic mitigation measures are also detailed in the July26, 2000 letter prepared by LADOT approving the traffic analysis prepared for the project that isincorporated into the DEIR (see Comment Letter TAMX). The LADOT letter provides a concept plan forthe recommended reconfiguration at the Gorham Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard intersection. Under therecommended plan, vehicular access for the Whole Foods market, located immediately west of the projectsite on the north side of San Vicente Boulevard, would be enhanced as compared to current conditions.

The Whole Foods market currently has two driveways onto San Vicente Boulevard west of the projectsite. Motorists approaching the market from westbound San Vicente Boulevard turn right into thedriveways while eastbound San Vicente Boulevard motorists are required to travel past the driveways andmake a u-turn at the Gorham Avenue intersection. All motorists exiting the market onto San VicenteBoulevard must turn right due to the raised median. Exiting motorists with destinations on eastbound SanVicente Boulevard must make a u-turn at the Montana Avenue intersection.

The easterly Whole Foods market driveway is immediately adjacent to the northwest corner of theGorham Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard intersection. Thus, any queuing from the easterly Whole Foodsmarket driveway immediately affects operations at the adjacent Gorham Avenue/San Vicente Boulevardintersection.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

With the project access configuration and implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in theDEIR, access to the Whole Foods market will improve. Inbound motorists from westbound San VicenteBoulevard would still turn right. While eastbound San Vicente Boulevard motorists (as well asnorthbound Gorham Avenue motorists) will have access to a new turn pocket to complete the u-turns intothe market driveways. For exiting movements, motorists will have the option to use the new turn pocketprovided at the Gorham Avenue intersection for purposes of completing u-turns to eastbound San VicenteBoulevard (i.e., rather than having to travel west to the Montana Avenue intersection prior to making a u-turn). In summary, the project access scheme and associated traffic mitigation measures described in theDEIR will improve, and not degrade access to the adjacent Whole Foods market.

The proposed project’s parking provisions are not similar to that provided by the Norton Plaza. AtNorton Plaza, the frequent overflow of cars onto San Vicente Boulevard, often backing up into theintersection with Montana Avenue, is caused by people waiting for one of the scarce surface parkingspaces, rather than pulling into the underutilized underground parking structure. This situation isexacerbated by that garage's lack of stair/escalator access to the ground level, necessitating the use ofelevators. In contrast, the proposed project provides easy parking access via its valet service and self-parking for patrons, which will be primarily at the first and second levels. For patrons using the valetservice in particular, once the patron's car is dropped off on the first level, the ground level is reached bytaking an escalator up through a large, daylit opening to arrive in the plaza.


� Lastly, forgetting the taking of Gorham and the buildable area being granted to thedevelopment for it for free, Gorham is such a valuable artery for the Brentwood area. In spiteof new signalization proposed, nothing will replace the relief in traffic that Gorham providesfor this area — again, not measured in the EIR Report.

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment BEITLERX-10 which provides a discussion of the incorporation of thepotential traffic impacts due to the closure of Gorham Avenue between Barrington Avenue and SanVicente Boulevard into the traffic analysis provided in the DEIR. As shown in the DEIR on Tables IV.F-11 and IV.F-12 , the potential traffic impacts due to the project (i.e., due to the commercial project and theGorham Avenue closure) are forecasted to be less than significant after consideration of the recommendedtraffic mitigation measures.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


Mr. Reyes, obviously you can see that I believe this project is ill suited for the site and the EIR Report tobe highly deficient. I assure you that the Brentwood community feels the same. I also enclose my initialNovember 16, 1998 letter to Charles Rausch concerning the effects on my building, employees, clients,and tenants.

I look forward to discussing any or all of thee [sic] issues with you. Please do not hesitate to contact me at(310) 820-2955.

RESPONSE:

As indicated in Responses to Comments BEITLERX-5 through BEITLERX-13, the project’s traffic andaccess impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels. Moreover, in some instances, such as theintersection with the alley and Barrington Avenue and the intersection of Barrington Avenue and SanVicente Boulevard, conditions would be improved, and not degraded as suggested by the commenter.

Responses to the commenter’s attached letter dated November 16, 1998 are provided below as Responsesto Comments BEITLERX-15 through BEITLERX-20.


LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 16, 1998

This letter is in response to your Pre-Draft Request for Comments on the proposed 17111 San VicenteBoulevard project in Brentwood. Along with numerous home owners, home owner associations,apartment residents, and commercial tenants who have approached me recently on this very controversialdevelopment, please let me add my name to the list of concerned citizens against the development. Thisproject has created a great deal of unrest, which I’m sure you are aware of after hearing from numerousparties since the memo and recent articles appeared.

I am sending this letter to express my concern, not only as a Brentwood resident and an activebusinessman in the area, but also as the owner of a commercial property located immediately to the northof this site. I am adamantly against this development for the following reasons:

� Brentwood does not need another 3-story retail development that takes away from the charmof the area. Brentwood Gardens, an existing 3-story project, already has demonstrated thatretailers on the second and third floors cannot survive, as a series of various tenants going inand out of business have tried.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

As discussed in Response to Comment BEITLERX-1, CEQA requires that comments be focused on thesufficiency of the DEIR, not on personal attitudes toward the project (CEQA Guidelines Section15204.5(a)). Therefore, no further response is required.

The “need” for the project and its viability are economic and/or social concerns. CEQA does not apply toeconomic and social effects; thus, the need for the project is outside the scope of the DEIR. (CEQAGuidelines §15131, Public Resources Code §21060.5). No further response is required.


� Like Brentwood Gardens, this proposed project brings with it unbelievable parking, trafficproblems, and blocked alleyways for delivery and trash. There are times when San VicenteBoulevard backs up for blocks or is reduced to one lane by cars trying to park or enter theunderground garage.

RESPONSE:

With respect to parking, the reader is referred to Response to Comment BEITLERX-4. With respect totraffic the reader is referred to Responses to Comments BEITLERX-5 through BEITLERX-13. Withrespect to the alleys, the reader is referred to Responses to Comments BEITLERX-7 through BEITLER-9.With respect to the concern that traffic would backup onto San Vicente, the reader is referred toBEITLERX-5.


� Unlike Brentwood Gardens, which is on an interior lot and where parking backs up in a oneway direction east along San Vicente, this project sits on a very active corner where anytraffic back up along Barrington or San Vicente will be an unbelievable mess.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Response to Comment BEITLERX-5 for a discussion of the proposed site accessconfiguration at the project. As stated in the response, no impacts to San Vicente Boulevard due toproject access are anticipated. The project does not propose vehicular access from Barrington Avenue;thus no impacts related to site access are anticipated along Barrington Avenue.


� There is no parking in Brentwood. I can tell you from firsthand experience at this corner thatno parking exists in the immediate area and 275 parking spaces for this project is not enough.I’m sure the developers will need restaurants as anchors on the upper floors and forgetting thefact that these tenants need more than 5/1000 parking by code, the project in general isunderparked. Combine this with the new Whole Foods Market next door (formerly WestwardHo), and this area will become an even bigger nightmare. My adjacent building’s parking isconstantly filled with uninvited parkers, making for very angry employees and clients.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Response to Comment BEITLERX-4 for a discussion of issues related to parkingat the project. As noted in that response, the project will provide parking in accordance to the City Coderequirements for all uses in the development. Based on the provision of City Code parking on-site,parking impacts to off-site businesses are not anticipated.


� Closing Gorham will create total mayhem. It doesn’t matter whether left turns, right turns, orstreet widening takes place, Gorham acts as a relief for traffic that backs up on Barringtondaily. Adding to that customers who will be entering the proposed project on San Vicente,will only further back up Barrington as well as the intersection. Gorham currently is apositive street for the area, further allowing a release point for southbound traffic to SanVicente that could never be relieved by the proposed project’s turn lane. The city of LosAngeles should be warned that the taking of a street such as this for private development is apoor practice to undertake, especially a thoroughfare as important as Gorham is to Barringtonsouthbound.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Response to Comment BEITLERX-10 for a discussion of the analysis ofpotential project related traffic impacts which consider the potential net new trips due to the proposedcommercial development, as well as the rerouting of existing trips on the local street system as a result ofthe proposed closure of Gorham Avenue between Barrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. Asshown in Tables IV.F-11 and IV.F-12, potential project related traffic impacts (i.e., due to the commercialproject and the Gorham Avenue closure) are forecasted to be less than significant.


� The alley behind this proposed project is immovable and at times is the only exit and entrancepoint to over 1/2 of the employees, customers, and tenants of my building. It is also theparking entrance to numerous apartment and condominium dwellers along Montana and anexit point for Whole Foods and all of the commercial business along the north side of SanVicente. With any sort of access to or from this development or trash collection in the alley,the leaseability and value of my property is greatly diminished and the ensuing traffic will beunbearable.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Response to Comment BEITLERX-8, which provides a description of theproposed site access configuration at the project. As discussed in the Response, access for deliveryvehicles serving the project is proposed via the alley along the north edge of the project site. All othervehicles associated with the project will utilize the project driveway located on San Vicente Boulevardwest of Barrington Avenue. Therefore, the only trips generated by the project on the alley are expected tobe delivery vehicles. Utilization of the alley for access by project service vehicles is appropriate andconsistent with the access scheme at other commercial developments in the project vicinity as noted bythe commenter. It is stated in the DEIR on page III-10 that the project is required to dedicate and improvethe alley along the project frontage by 2.5 feet. This additional width will improve operations for allvehicles that currently utilize the alley.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


Mr. Rausch, as a commercial real estate broker and developer, I know how development should andshould not work. A project of this scale is bad for this intersection and this community and I add my nameto the list of the anti-project residents and commercial people who will be greatly affected if you allow theproject as planned to go through.

Brentwood is a quaint and charming town. As planners for the district, I would hope you will take theappropriate steps necessary to keep it that way.

RESPONSE:

As indicated in Responses to Comments BEITLERX-5 through BEITLERX-13, the project’s traffic andaccess impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels. Moreover, in some instances, such as theintersection with the alley and Barrington Avenue and the intersection of Barrington Avenue and SanVicente Boulevard, conditions would be improved.

LETTER NO. DITLOWX

Mrs. Loretta Ditlow13686 Bayliss Rd.Los Angeles, CA 90049


COMMENT NO. DITLOWX-1:

In response to the above, I would like to ask these questions:

1. The large space of land which will accrue from the vacation of Gorham Avenue if purchased atthe prevailing commercial real estate prices would be over 2 million dollars. What will you giveback to the community and the City for this gift?

2. Because the project “The Park” will involve much inconvenience to the neighbors and willinvolve a gift from the City of over 14,000 square feet of land from Gorham Avenue vacation,what will you give back to the community?


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The valuation of Gorham Avenue is not an issue at all since it is not available for development orcommercial sale; the City merely has an easement for street purposes.

� Unless Gorham Avenue is incorporated into the proposed project, the street may not be used forany purpose other than street purposes as it is required for access to the parking lots of theexisting properties. Accordingly, Gorham Avenue has no commercial worth at all and thereforehas zero value.

� If the City decides it no longer needs Gorham Avenue for street purposes and accordingly vacatesthe street, the street reverts back to the parcels from which it was originally taken.

� Although approximately 14,000 square feet of Gorham Avenue is being vacated, approximately7,000 square feet of land is being dedicated to the City for street widening purposes (15 feet ofproperty along Barrington Avenue, 2 ½ feet of property along the alley, plus an amount sufficientfor a large radius turn at the corner of Barrington and San Vicente), resulting in a net gain of7,000 square feet (and not 14,000 square feet). Additionally, consideration must be given to thefact that the project is providing 13,400 square feet of open space, i.e., 8,400 square feet of openspace in excess of the 5,000 feet of open space required by the SVSCSP.

� With respect to what the project will give back to the community, the reader is referred toResponse to Comment WRIGHTX-61.


3. The Project should give back to the community at least an auditorium dedicated for communityorganizational meetings and a community out-reach police station.

RESPONSE:

As discussed in Topical Response 2, implementation of mitigation measures (such as the suggestedprovision of an auditorium and a community out-reach police station) are only required for effects found tobe significant. Less than significant impacts do not require mitigation measures (CEQA Guidelines Section15126.4(a)(3)). The only significant impacts identified for the proposed project are caused by construction-related noise. No significant impacts have been identified that would be mitigated by the suggestedprovision of an auditorium and a community out-reach police station. Therefore, these measures are notrequired. Nevertheless, community space is provided for in the open spaces of the project.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


4. The Project can be designed to include only half the Gorham Avenue vacation, allowing adedicated right turn land from Barrington onto San Vicente and replacing the Starbucks CoffeeShop area with a small community green space park.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Responses to Comments MISCIKOWSKIX-1 and MISCIKOWSKIX-2.


5. You need to provide more parking than 266 spaces to insure employee parking at the project siteand not on the surface streets.

RESPONSE:

Several commenters have raised concerns regarding the adequacy of the project’s proposed on-siteparking. Accordingly, a topical response has been prepared for these comments. The reader is referred toTopical Response 7. 275 parking spaces will be provided.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

LETTER NO. HILLMANX

Barbara A. Hillman11436 Berwick StreetLos Angeles, CA 90049


COMMENT NO. HILLMANX-1:

The amended EIR for the proposed building at the intersection of San Vicente Boulevard and BarringtonAvenue must address the following:

TRAFFIC:

The driving patterns and the resulting traffic are currently difficult in this area. Any additional operationmust address this issue and extend the study to the major feeding streets of Sunset Boulevard and ofWilshire Boulevard. At present, driving is progressively slower in this area and will be exacerbated bythe addition of a new enterprise.

RESPONSE:

The analysis of potential project related traffic impacts on the local street system is described in the DEIRin Section IV.F, Transportation/Circulation and summarized on Table IV.F-11, page IV.F-35 of theDEIR. The study area selected by LADOT included in the intersections of Barrington Avenue and SunsetBoulevard, as well as Barrington Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard. As shown, prior to consideration ofmitigation measures, the project is forecasted to result in significant traffic impacts at three intersectionslocated in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Table IV.F-12, page IV.F-40 of the DEIR indicatesthat with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, the traffic impacts of the project arereduced to less than significant levels. Due to the localized nature of the project traffic impacts, it is notnecessary to analyze additional intersections along Sunset Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard assuggested by the commenter.

Recirculation of an amended DEIR is not required. Comments received on the sufficiency of the DEIRdo not reveal that the project would cause new significant impacts not previously identified in the DEIR.Nor does the new information provided in comments received or the responses provided indicate thatthere would be a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact discussed in the DEIR.Also, no significant new information has been added that changes the EIR in a way that deprives the


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of theproject or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) thatthe project’s proponents have declined to implement. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA GuidelinesSection 15088.5 (b), no recirculation of the DEIR is required. For further discussion regarding thenecessity to revise the DEIR and recirculate it for public review, the reader is referred to TopicalResponse 3.


Driving is heavy at the morning and evening commuter times and at noon and the luncheon times. It cantake 20-30 minutes to drive from Kenter via Sunset to the 405 freeway. It often is more difficult on thesmaller street of Barrington. Driving here becomes even more difficult with the simple but necessary leftturn of a Barrington resident into his/her garage. Delivery trucks for the necessaries of daily life make thedrive even slower. The gap of time within which driving and parking is suitable for errands and meetingsis becoming shorter and shorter.

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment HILLMANX-1 for a discussion of potential project related traffic impacts. Adiscussion of the traffic study methodology is provided in the DEIR on pages IV.F-16 through IV.F-18.Traffic studies are typically conducted by analyzing the highest hour of traffic at area intersections so asto provide a conservative assessment of traffic conditions. LADOT required the analysis of the weekdayAM and PM peak hour commuter hours as these periods represent the times of greatest background trafficgrowth and thus, the greatest potential for the project to contribute significant traffic impacts.

The recommended project traffic mitigation measures are summarized in the DEIR on pages IV.F-38through IV.F-41. The July 26, 2000 LADOT letter also provides a summary of the project traffic impactsand recommended mitigation measures (see Comment Letter TAMX). Specifically, the project isrequired to dedicate 15 feet of property along the project’s Barrington Avenue frontage and widenBarrington Avenue by 15 feet. The improvement allows for the southbound Barrington Avenue approachto the San Vicente Boulevard intersection to be restriped to provide three lanes: one left-turn lane, onethrough lane, and one right-turn lane. Currently, separate left-turn lanes are not provided on theBarrington Avenue at the intersection with San Vicente Boulevard.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


PARKING:

Parking has nearly reached a saturation point. Some of our businesses have ceased their operationsbecause parking is limited and customers cannot access these businesses. If you desire to have lunch inthis area, it is necessary to start looking for parking at noon. By one o’clock, most spaces are taken.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Topical Response 7 for a discussion of parking provided at the project site. Onpage IV.F-37 of the DEIR, it is concluded that the project is not expected to significantly impact on-streetparking in the area due to the provision of adequate on-site parking.


PROPOSED DELIVERIES TO THESE RESTAURANTS:

It is currently proposed that the alley between Montana and Gorham be used for all deliveries to the newbuilding. This particular alley is already crowded with deliveries to existing businesses and with carsexiting from those businesses and residences off this alley.

I suggest that the traffic engineer visit the site and stay there for an entire day to observe and recordactivity. If this person does not do the work now, it is very likely that these proposed businesses will alsobe of short duration. However, the neighborhood will be stuck with a permanent structure. The owners ofthis land certainly want to make a profit on their investment, but a major revision to their plans isnecessary to ensure their success.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Topical Response 9 for a discussion of the proposed site access configuration asprovided in the DEIR. Access for delivery vehicles serving the project is proposed via the alley along thenorth edge of the project site. All other vehicles associated with the project will utilize the projectdriveway located on San Vicente Boulevard west of Barrington Avenue. Therefore, the only tripsgenerated by the project on the alley are expected to be delivery vehicles. Utilization of the alley foraccess by project service vehicles is appropriate and consistent with the access scheme at othercommercial developments in the project vicinity as noted by the commenter.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4



LETTER NO. HOLSEYX

Christopher Holsey11706 Dorothy Street, Apt. 8Los Angeles, California 90049


COMMENT NO. HOLSEYX-1:

I am writing in response to the form letter delivered to our address regarding the proposed development at11711 San Vicente Boulevard.

In simple terms, I respectfully suggest that you turn down the proposal to develop this property. Leavethe area alone. It is fine as it is.

RESPONSE: The commenter has not made a comment regarding the sufficiency of the DEIR (CEQAGuidelines Section 15204.5(a)). While no further response is required, the commenter is referred toTopical Response 1, for a discussion of Section 15204.5 of the CEQA Guidelines which is intended tohelp the public and public agencies to focus their review of environmental documents and their commentsto lead agencies.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


Traffic on any given day in the area surrounding the charming triangle on Gorham Avenue containingStarbucks is congested enough. While the developers are trying to paint a different picture, furtherdevelopment will do nothing more than add to the intensely competitive traffic problems that weexperience daily coming and going out of our front drive.

RESPONSE: As the results of the DEIR’s traffic analysis show, not only are project impacts mitigated toless than significant levels at all intersections with the implementation of the recommended measures, butfuture traffic conditions are expected to be better at most locations than if no project were built,particularly during the critical PM peak hour. This indicates that the project mitigation package providesmore capacity than is utilized by the proposed project. This results in improved traffic conditions in thestudy area. The commenter is also referred to Response to Comment CLEMENSX-1.


Additionally the last thing that this area needs is more shopping and restaurants. Over the years we haveseen the charm of our neighborhood gradually diminish. We are at the point where one more project willtransform this once quaint neighborhood into a hectic commercial business area.

RESPONSE: The DEIR provides an assessment of the project’s physical effects on the environment.However, the “need” for the project is an economic and/or social concern. CEQA does not apply toeconomic and social effects; thus, the need for the project is outside the scope of the DEIR. (CEQAGuidelines §15131, Public Resources Code §21060.5). No further response is required.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

LETTER NO. JOSEPHX

James JosephP.O. Box 24678Los Angeles, CA 90012


COMMENT NO. JOSEPHX-1:

Re the proposed project at 11711 San Vicente Boulevard, West Los Angeles (Brentwood), which for itsconstruction and, most importantly, financial feasibility, seeks the vacation by the City of Los Angeles, tothe proposed project’s ultimate significant financial advantage, of a block of Gorham Avenue, betweenSan Vicente Boulevard and Barrington Avenue.

Such proposed vacation would eliminate access for, and traffic use by, the more than one million(1,000,000) vehicles which annually use this short, but trafffic (sic) vital, 210-ft long street.

These annual more than one million vehicles, deprived of this short Gorham block’s use, would jam andirrevocably congest already often bumper-to-bumper traffic on contiguous San Vicente Boulevard andBarrington Avenue.

RESPONSE:

The analysis of potential project related traffic impacts are described in the DEIR in Section IV.F,Transportation/Circulation and are summarized on Table IV.F-11, page IV.F-35 of the DEIR. The projectimpacts consider the potential net new trips due to the proposed commercial development, as well as thererouting of existing trips on the local street system as a result of the proposed closure of Gorham Avenuebetween Barrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. See pages IV.F-25 through IV.F-28 of theDEIR for a discussion of the Gorham Avenue closure traffic analysis. As shown in Table IV.F-11, priorto consideration of mitigation measures, the project is forecasted to result in significant traffic impacts atthree intersections. Table IV.F-12, page IV.F-40 of the DEIR indicates that with implementation of therecommended mitigation measures, the traffic impacts of the project are reduced to less than significantlevels.

A discussion of the traffic study methodology is provided in the DEIR on pages IV.F-16 through IV.F-18.Traffic studies are typically conducted by analyzing the highest hour of traffic at area intersections so asto provide a conservative assessment of traffic conditions. LADOT required the analysis of the weekday


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

AM and PM peak hour commuter hours as these periods represent the times of greatest background trafficgrowth and thus, the greatest potential for the project to contribute significant traffic impacts.

Page IV.F-6 of the DEIR provides data regarding estimated current daily and peak hour trips along thesegment of Gorham Avenue between San Vicente Boulevard and Barrington Avenue. The contentionprovided by the commenter regarding the annual number of trips on Gorham Avenue cannot be verified.


* My careful and continuing traffic counts---as both a 20-year resident living close to the proposed street“vacation” and building site, and as an expert in traffic management---show (a) that more than 1,000,000vehicles use this short street annually; (b) that over the past 9 months there has been a significant 4.8percent (4.8%) increase in traffic on this short, but traffic vital Gorham Avenue block.

Typical traffic counts: one block Gorham Avenue, between San Vicente Boulevard and BarringtonAvenue.

Monday, January 31, 2000. 4:45 p.m. to 5:45 p.m.

During this one hour, not the busiest of the day (5:45 pm. to 6:45 p.m. is busier), my preciselyadministered vehicle count showed:

304 vehicles, some 98% private vehicles, used this single Gorham block.

Of these:

220 vehicles turned onto Barrington Avenue from this single Gorham short block or into thissingle Gorham Avenue short block from Barrington Avenue.

84 vehicles crossed Barrington Avenue, from Gorham, crossing from west to east or from east towest. And in either case using this single Gorham short block as a starting or ending place.

If this 1-hour typical (for its hour) count is interpolated over a typical heavy trafficked 12 hour period,from 7 am. to 7 p.m., the total count of vehicles using this single Gorham block during a typical weekdayis 3648 vehicles.. (sic)


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

Over the same 12 hour period, some 1008 vehicles ---the “crossers”---used this single Gorham blockexclusively. They did not turn into Barrington Avenue They did not turn into this Gorham block fromBarrington. Rather, they crossed Barrington, going from Gorham to Gorham.

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment JOSEPHX-1 regarding the commenter’s traffic projections for GorhamAvenue. Also, the commenter’s assertions regarding traffic volume growth in the area cannot beconfirmed. As stated on page IV.F-10 of the DEIR, LADOT required the use of a one percent annualgrowth rate for purposes of developing the future traffic volume forecasts (in addition to consideration ofidentified related projects). It should be noted that the peak hour count reported by the commenter forGorham Avenue (304 vehicles) is consistent with the existing PM peak hour volume on Gorham Avenueas reported in the DEIR (page IV.F-28).


Annual projection:

Projections of the daily “busy use” period of this one short Gorham block over a year’s use, figuring 20days to a month (Saturday and Sunday omitted because weekend traffic patterns and counts differradically from those of busy-hour weekdays), and disregarding traffic altogether during weekday non-busy hours (7 p.m. to 7 a.m.), show:

3648 (vehicles per 12-hour weekday) x5 days week= 18,240 vehicles per week.18,240 x 4 (weeks in month)=72,960 vehicles per month.72,960 x 12 (months in year)= 875,520 vehicles per year.

And these figures do not count weekend traffic, or traffic during the non-busy 12 hours of every weekday.

The annual vehicle use of this single Gorham block easily exceeds 1,000,000 vehicles.

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment JOSEPHX-1 regarding the commenter’s traffic projections for GorhamAvenue.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


Most recent of my continuing traffic counts, made Monday, October 30, 2000, almost 9 months to the dayof the above count and its findings, and for this same short Gorham block, during the identical heavy-usetraffic period and hour, showed a 4.8 percent increase in traffic:

19,115 vehicles per week76,460 vehicles per month.917,520 vehicles per year.

Thus, the annual vehicle use of this single Gorham block, increased over the studied 9 months by some4.8 percent, easily exceeds 1,100,000 vehicles.

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment JOSEPHX-1 regarding the commenter’s traffic projections for GorhamAvenue.


Conclusions:

1. This single, short ( approx. 210 lineal feet) Gorham block is very probably, for its diminutivelength, among the most trafficked blocks in the City of Los Angeles.

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment JOSEPHX-1 regarding the commenter’s traffic projections for GorhamAvenue. The commenter’s claim regarding the use of Gorham Avenue as compared to other streets in theCity of Los Angeles cannot be confirmed, and is not supported by substantial evidence.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


2. To “vacate” or otherwise close this block to the more than 1,000,000 vehicles it annually carrieswould, diverting these vehicles to contiguous San Vicente Boulevard and Barrington Avenue,cause already bumper-to-bumper traffic on these two arteries during busy 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.weekdays to virtually come to a standstill.

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment JOSEPHX-1 regarding the commenter’s traffic projections for GorhamAvenue, as well as for a discussion of the analysis of the potential impacts due to the proposedcommercial project and closure of Gorham Avenue as provided in the DEIR.


3. Surveys have shown that the majority of Brentwood residents are heavily against the closure ofthis short Gorham block and the intolerable traffic congestion (already intolerable, most residentsbelieve) that closure of this Gorham block would inevitably cause.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Topical Response 8 for a discussion of the traffic impacts associated with theproposed vacation of Gorham Avenue.


4. The proposed so-called “vacation” of this short Gorham block (the “Gorham portion” of thedeveloper’s proposed building site) constitutes nothing less than an arrogant land grab of publicproperty (property of the City of Los Angeles) for private profit to the enormous dailydisadvantage and inconvenience of the Brentwood public, of a vital, ever more heavily traffickedpublic thoroughfare.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Topical Responses 4 and 8 for discussions of the traffic impacts associated withthe proposed vacation of Gorham Avenue.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


5. The “vacation” of this short Gorham block, in total some 14,289 sq. ft. of City property(measured from street centerline to the sidewalk outer property/city limit), would represent morethan 25% ---twenty-five percent---of the proposed project’s total 54,700 gross sq. ft. as specifiedin the Developer’s Environmental Notations statements to the City of Los Angeles, datedNovember 3, 1998 and October 3, 2000.

RESPONSE:



6. Bottom Line: quite aside from the intolerable traffic tieups (sic) this project will cause indiverting more than 1,000,000 vehicles annually onto already frequently gridlocked San VicenteBoulevard and Barrington Avenue, “vacating” this Gorham block will gift the developer withmore than 25% of his proposed project’s total square footage---a gift of 14,289 sq. ft, value-calculated by local Realtors at approx. $200 per sq. ft., or a “vacation” (in fact, a City giveaway)with a current value of some $2,857,800.

RESPONSE:

The real estate value of the proposed vacation cannot be verified and constitutes the commenter’s opinion.CEQA does not apply to economic and social effects; thus, the value of the proposed vacation is outsidethe scope of the DEIR. (CEQA Guidelines §15131, Public Resources Code §21060.5). While noresponse is required, the reader is referred to Response to Comment DITLOWX-1 for further discussionof the value of the proposed street vacation.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


Two facts are evident:

(1) Since “vacation” of this short Gorham block represents more than 25% of the Developer’s totalproject square footage, from the very outset of the Developer’s now some 7 year effort to obtainthis street vacation for its own profit and benefit, the feasibility of the project from get-godepended on the giveaway of this City property. Anything less dooms the project.

(2) Toward this end, the Developer has amassed over the years and at great expense a team ofarchitects, traffic engineers, lawyers, public relations people and others to spin-doctor whatconstitutes nothing less than a thinly veiled effort, but one with a huge payoff for the Developer,not only in land value but in future project profits, to convince City planners and others withdecisive power, to grant what the original City planners refused--to “vacate” this short Gorhamblock.

The history of this particular short Gorham block goes back 60-70 years or more when Brentwood waslaid out. Before the City of Los Angeles would permit the land use, it was even then evident that a shortblock here was essential to traffic then and in the future. For this reason, before the City (and its thenPlanners) would grant the plan, the City demanded creation of this short Gorham block. The landowner,as a condition of plan approval, granted the City of Los Angeles a dedicated street, to the street centerfrom opposite side properties.

Thus, this short Gorham block is, and from the original layout of Brentwood has been, a dedicated block.

The City of Los Angeles is under no legal obligation whatsoever to approve the Developer’s project plan,nor to deed to the Developer this block of Gorham Avenue.

RESPONSE:

The commenter is correct that the City of Los Angeles is under no legal obligation to approve theproposed project or to vacate this block of Gorham Avenue.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

LETTER NO. SMITSX

Karen Smits11337 Farlin StreetLos Angeles, CA 90049

Date Received: December 5, 2000

COMMENT NO. SMITSX-1:

I live in Brentwood Glen and am most concerned about the potential new building at the corner ofBarrington & San Vicente.. and the closing of Gorham Place (in front of The Woods and behindStarbucks). This is an incredible (sic) useful and well used section of Gorham.

The new building will cause too much traffic to the area of Barrington, San Vicente and surrounding area.Please review the traffic study, I believe you will find several buildings currently under construction(residential building on San Vicente by The Gap and a huge condo building behind the library) were notconsidered when the traffic impact study was made for “The Park” (and what a misnomer of a name)!!

RESPONSE:

With respect to the amount of traffic generation caused by the proposed project, the reader is referred toResponse to Comment CLEMENSX-1. The reader is referred to Topical Response 8 for a discussion ofthe proposed vacation of Gorham Avenue, and Topical Response 6 for a discussion of related projects.


Barrington is a two lane road. It cannot be widen (sic) to take into account the amount of traffic thispotential new building will bring to the area. There will be cars waiting too long to turn in any one of fourdirections.

RESPONSE:

The project mitigation measure referenced by the commenter is summarized in the DEIR on page IV.F-39. The improvement is also discussed in the July 26, 2000 LADOT letter which provides a summary ofthe project traffic impacts and recommended mitigation measures (see Comment Letter TAMX).


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

Specifically, the project is required to dedicate 15 feet of property along the project’s Barrington Avenuefrontage and widen Barrington Avenue by 15 feet. The improvement allows for the southboundBarrington Avenue approach to the San Vicente Boulevard intersection to be restriped to provide threelanes: one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane.


In the alley way behind the potential building is where the delivery trucks will bring goods for thisbuilding. The alley is already too narrow for two passenger cars to pass. What will we do when a deliverytruck is delivering its goods? By the way, consider the residents of the buildings (apartments & condos)facing Montana whose garages are entered off this alley. They will be blocked from entering theirbuilding.

RESPONSE:

A description of the proposed site access configuration at the project is provided in the DEIR in SectionIII, Project Description and in Section IV.F, Transportation/Circulation. As discussed on page III-10,access for delivery vehicles serving the project is proposed via the alley along the north edge of theproject site. All other vehicles associated with the project will utilize the project driveway located on SanVicente Boulevard west of Barrington Avenue. Therefore, the only trips generated by the project on thealley are expected to be delivery vehicles. Utilization of the alley for access by project service vehicles isappropriate and consistent with the access scheme at other commercial developments in the projectvicinity.




_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


The entrance and exit of this building is designed to be off San Vicente. This will cause too muchcongestion on San Vicente. The building should enter on San Vicente and exit the alley (as other largebuildings on the North side of San Vicente do).

RESPONSE:


The project vehicular access scheme provides for a driveway located near the westerly site boundaryalong San Vicente Boulevard, in the approximate location of the existing north leg of Gorham Avenue.The location of the project driveway was selected in part to minimize potential adverse effects at theBarrington Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard intersection. By providing accommodations for both ingressand egress movements at the proposed driveway on San Vicente Boulevard, potential impacts to the alleylocated along the north side of the project site are minimized.

The project will provide three levels of subterranean parking. It is anticipated that employees would bedirected to park in the lowest level of the parking system, leaving the upper and most convenient parkingspaces available to project patrons using the valet service or self-parking. Further, the project parkingcontrol devices (i.e., the location where motorists would stop to receive a parking ticket) are expected tobe located at the first subterranean level. This would result in approximately 120 feet of on-site storagearea (assuming an average 10% grade on the entry driveway and a 12 foot vertical separation betweenstreet level and the first floor of subterranean parking) for vehicles to queue prior to the parking controlgate, thereby eliminating the potential for vehicles to queue onto San Vicente Boulevard. Therefore, noproject impacts related to site access are anticipated.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


The proposed building will also take away metered parking on San Vicente and Barrington. Theseparking spaces are much needed when you want to park and run into a building for a quick trip.

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment MISCIKOWSKIX-5 for a discussion of the on-street parking spaces to beremoved by the project, and for discussion of the conclusion that the project is not expected tosignificantly impact on-street parking due to the provision of adequate on-site parking.


Thank you for listening to my concerns and please do what you can to deny the constructing of this newbuilding.

RESPONSE:


LETTER NO. ZACCAX

Nada Zacca11687 Montana Ave,. #309Los Angeles, CA 90049-4680



_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

COMMENT NO. ZACCAX-1

As a resident at 11687 Montana Ave #309 for the last 11 years, I have seen this neighborhood changed tothe worst with so much traffic and people driving very fast & so aggressively. If you come between 4:30p.m.-7:p.m. to my location you see a lot of cars making a U turn in our driveway avoiding turning left onBarrington going North, as they are going east on Montana. This problem is increasing & it is creating adanger to all of us.

RESPONSE:



Why should the residents of Los Angeles suffer to benefit a greedy developer, who wants also to take onemore street from us, that helps a great deal in easing traffic, to create pollution & noise to everyone.

RESPONSE: The commenter is referred to Topical Response 8 for a discussion of the proposed GorhamAvenue street vacation.


Are Los Angeles streets for sale? Why? Is it because this developer is buying everything; our citycouncil people, our streets & very soon our souls?

I wonder what is happening to our city, to our country!

It will be a very sad day for Los Angeles when this project goes through.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE: The commenter is referred to Topical Response 8 for a discussion of the proposed GorhamAvenue street vacation.

LETTER NO. SCHMIDTX

Pamela S. SchmidtJeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro LLP2121 Avenue of the Stars, 10th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90067-5010


COMMENT NO. SCHMIDTX-1:

We are submitting these comments to the draft Environmental Impact Report circulated for theBrentwood Project / “The Park” (SCH NO. 98111036) on behalf of K.C. Investment Company andBrentwood Square, LLC, the owners of the neighboring developments known as Brentwood GardensShopping Center and Brentwood Square, respectively. Brentwood Square, which is located at 11661 SanVicente Boulevard, is a 130,000 square foot, 10-story retail and office development that is generallyidentified with the Union Bank and the Cheesecake Factory tenancies. K.C. Investment Company andBrentwood Square, LLC, are referred to collectively below as the Property Owners.

Preliminarily, we note that on November 27, 2000 we requested an extension of the public commentperiod on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The City failed to grant this request; thereforethe submission of these comments is without prejudice to submit comments after the comment period hasclosed or to challenge the City’s failure to extent the comment period.

RESPONSE:

As discussed on page II-1 of this FEIR, the public comment period was from October 5, 2000 throughDecember 4, 2000, a total of 61 days. This total comment period was in excess of the 45-day publiccomment period required by CEQA.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


I. THE VACATION OF GORHAM AVENUE WILL CAUSE MAJOR TRAFFIC CONGESTION.

The property Owners primary concern about the Project is the tremendous traffic problems in the area thatwill be created by the vacation of Gorham Avenue between Barrington Avenue and San VicenteBoulevard – problems which were ignored in the Draft EIR’s traffic study.

Brentwood Gardens and Brentwood Square are located on the north side of San Vicente Boulevardbetween Barrington Avenue and Darlington Avenue (immediately east of the project site). As the City isundoubtedly aware, cars leaving the parking garages for Brentwood Gardens and Brentwood Square arerequired to exit onto Gorham Place, a narrow public street that runs between Gorham Avenue andDarlington Avenue at the rear of our clients’ properties. A left turn from onto Gorham Place leads toGorham Avenue; a right turn leads to Darlington Avenue. At present, travelers (sic) whose nextdestination is west of these developments will head west on Gorham Place, turn onto Gorham Avenue,cross Barrington Avenue and turn west onto San Vicente Boulevard. The proposed vacation will blockthis west bound path.

As set forth below, the traffic study fails to address the impact of blocking the west bound traveler fromthese projects. Further, the traffic study suffers from numerous other flaws, outlined in the enclosedanalysis by Parsons Transportation Group.

RESPONSE:

The analysis of potential project related traffic impacts at the intersection of Barrington Avenue andGorham Avenue are described in the DEIR in Section IV.F, Transportation/Circulation and aresummarized on Table IV.F-11, page IV.F-35 of the DEIR. The project impacts consider the potential netnew trips due to the proposed commercial development, as well as the rerouting of existing trips on thelocal street system as a result of the proposed closure of Gorham Avenue between Barrington Avenue andSan Vicente Boulevard. See pages IV.F-25 through IV.F-28 of the DEIR for a discussion of the GorhamAvenue closure traffic analysis.

As shown in Table IV.F-11, potential project related traffic impacts (i.e., due to the commercial projectand the Gorham Avenue closure) at the Barrington Avenue/Gorham Avenue intersection are forecasted tobe less than significant. In fact, an improvement of operations is forecasted at this location due to theconversion of the intersection from the existing four-leg configuration to a three-leg intersection. Theremoval of the westerly Gorham Avenue leg reduces the number of conflicting movements at theintersection, thereby improving overall traffic flow both on Barrington Avenue and Gorham Avenue.Thus, no impacts to access are anticipated to the existing commercial buildings located east of BarringtonAvenue.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

For more information on the effect of the closure of Gorham Avenue on traffic conditions, see TopicalResponse 8.


Finally, the DEIR fails to properly identify and analyze a reasonable range of alternatives, includingalternatives, including alternatives that would keep the well-traveled Gorham Avenue open.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Responses to Comments SCHMIDTX-15 through SCHMIDTX-21, below.


For these reasons, we ask the City revise the DEIR to correct these inadequacies, and recirculated it forfurther review and comment.

RESPONSE:

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, recirculation of the DEIR is not required. The Responsesto Comments SCHMIDTX-15 through SCHMIDTX-21 merely clarify and/or amplify information in theDEIR. The new information does not reveal that the project would cause new significant impacts notpreviously identified in the DEIR. Nor does a review of the new information indicate that there would bea substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact discussed in the DEIR. Furthermore, nosignificant new information has been added that changes the EIR in a way that deprives the public of ameaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or afeasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’sproponents have declined to implement. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section15088.5 (b), no recirculation of the DEIR is required.

The reader is referred to Topical Response 3 for a discussion of the conditions that require recirculation ofa DEIR prior to its certification.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


II. THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS INADEQUATE

A. The Traffic Study Failed to Analyze the Impact at San Vicente Boulevard and DarlingtonAvenue.

The most obvious defect of the traffic study is its incorrect assignment of new traffic routes for vehiclesblocked by the vacation of Gorham Avenue. In particular, it assumes that cars exiting Brentwood Squareand Brentwood Gardens whose next destination is west, will continue to head west on Gorham Place, turnonto Gorham Avenue and then turn left on Barrington Avenue and right onto San Vicente Boulevard.

However, the left hand turn from Gorham Avenue onto Barrington Avenue is extremely difficult becauseit requires cars to enter the congested south bound Barrington Avenue, then move immediately to theright lane to make a right onto San Vicente Boulevard. Therefore, it is much more likely that followingthe vacation of Gorham Avenue, travelers whose next destination is west will turn east on Gorham Place,right onto Darlington Avenue and then right onto San Vicente Boulevard.

As described on the attached letters, 1225 cars per day exit Brentwood Gardens and 975-1175 cars perday exit Brentwood Square (which also houses the Cheese Cake Factory). Because these developmentsserve the community west and north of them, the majority of the exiting travelers’ will be heading west.This will put an incredible strain on the intersection of Darlington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard.Yet, the intersection of Darlington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard (which is not signalized) was notstudied.

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment SCHMIDTX-2. As shown on Figure IV.F-6b, page IV.F-30 of the DEIR,under conditions with the proposed closure of Gorham Avenue west of Barrington Avenue, the trafficanalysis assumed that most motorists (approximately 45 vehicles in the PM peak hour) travelingwestbound on Gorham Avenue approaching Barrington Avenue would turn right on Barrington Avenue,and then turn left on Montana Avenue. Only 5 vehicles were assumed to make a left-turn fromwestbound Gorham Avenue to southbound Barrington Avenue. The forecasts were made based on actualcounts of vehicles currently traveling straight across Gorham Avenue during the peak hours.

The potential increase in utilization of Darlington Avenue north of San Vicente Boulevard by vehiclesassociated with the commercial properties east of Barrington Avenue due to the closure of GorhamAvenue is possible. However, based on the current counts of traffic traveling westbound on GorhamAvenue at Barrington Avenue during the peak hour, the amount of diversion to Darlington Avenue wouldbe negligible. In addition, motorists using Darlington Avenue to access San Vicente Boulevard would


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

involve a right-turn from a stop sign controlled approach. Any minor increase in this right-turn volumewould not adversely affect the overall operation of the Darlington Avenue/San Vicente Boulevardintersection. Therefore, the analysis of this intersection for potential project-related traffic impacts is notrequired.

A discussion of the traffic study methodology is provided in the DEIR on pages IV.F-16 through IV.F-18.Traffic studies are typically conducted by analyzing the highest hour of traffic at area intersections so asto provide a conservative assessment of traffic conditions. LADOT required the analysis of the weekdayAM and PM peak hour commuter hours as these periods represent the times of greatest background trafficgrowth and thus, the greatest potential for the project to contribute significant traffic impacts. Therefore,the daily figures regarding exiting from the existing commercial developments to the east are not relevantto the traffic analysis.


B. The Traffic Study Suffers from Numerous Other Flaws.

On behalf of the Property Owners, we engaged the Parsons Transportation Group to review the trafficstudy prepared by Crain & Associates and relied on by the City in the DEIR. As set forth in the enclosedmemorandum, the study suffers from many defects. These defects include:

� the failure to include as a related project for purposes of cumulative impact analysis a 15 unitapartment complex presently under construction at the nearby corner of Barrington andMontana;

RESPONSE:



_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


� the utter failure to analyze the traffic impact of this commercial project on local residentialstreets in what the DEIR calls a primarily residential area;

RESPONSE:

Project related trips are not anticipated to use single family residential streets for access, with theexception of residents who live in the area and choose to patronize the commercial uses at the site afterproject build-out.


� the failure to describe or depict in a meaningful way the assignment of traffic from relatedprojects on the nearby roadways;

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Topical Response 6 for a discussion of the methodology forecasting future pre-project trips on the local street system due to the related projects. The trip assignment of the relatedprojects was submitted to LADOT for review and approval prior to publication of the DEIR trafficanalysis.


� the failure to study the transit impact of this project;

RESPONSE:

Existing public transit services at the project site are described in the DEIR on pages IV.F-6 throughIV.F-7. The project trip generation forecast for the project is described in the DEIR on pages IV.F-18through IV.F-20. As required by LADOT, the traffic analysis assumes that the commercial project willprimarily draw patrons and employees via private automobiles, and thus trips made to the site by publictransit will be minimal. Therefore, no impacts to public transit services due to the project are anticipated.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


� the illogical and unreasonable assumptions made in redistributing traffic following thevacation of Gorham Avenue as well as the failure to explain the process by which thoseassumptions were arrived at;

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Response to Comment SCHMIDTX-2 for a discussion of the evaluation ofpotential traffic impacts associated with the proposed closure of Gorham Avenue. The reassignment oftrips using Gorham Avenue was submitted to LADOT for review and approval prior to publication of theDEIR traffic analysis.


� the failure to discuss the serious operational problems that will be created by providing anopening in the median to permit eastbound San Vicente travelers to turn left into the project,especially in light of the proximity of that opening to the signalized intersection of SanVicente Boulevard and Gorham Avenue;

RESPONSE:

Several commenters have raised concerns regarding project traffic patterns and site access. Accordingly,a topical response has been prepared for these comments. The reader is referred to Topical Response 10.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


� the failure to analyze the loss of street parking in this woefully under parked area of the City;and

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment MISCIKOWSKIX-5 for a discussion of the on-street parking spaces to beremoved by the project, and for discussion of the conclusion that the project is not expected tosignificantly impact on-street parking due to the provision of adequate on-site parking.


� the use of incorrect formulas for calculating office trip generation rates.

RESPONSE:

The trip generation forecast for the project is described in the DEIR on pages IV.F-18 through IV.F-20.Table IV.F-9 provides a summary of the project trip generation forecast. As stated in the DEIR, the triprates used to forecast the project trip generation are based on the “Shopping Center” land use. As definedin the Trip Generation manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, a Shopping Centeris a commercial complex providing a mix of tenants that are primarily retail in nature, but also containingother uses such as restaurants and office space. Therefore, LADOT determined that it was appropriate toapply trips rates associated with the Shopping Center land use to the entire floor area of the proposedproject since the primary tenants are expected to be retail in nature, but could include office and restaurantuses.


The defects outlined above and set forth in the attached report from Parsons Transportation Group, singlyand in combination, require the traffic analysis to be revised, and the DEIR recirculated.

RESPONSE:

Each of the above comments has been addressed in Responses to Comments SCHMIDTX-2 throughSCHMIDTX-13. No new significant impacts have been identified and no new significant information has


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

been added. As discussed in Response to Comment SCHMIDTX-4, recirculation of the DEIR is notrequired.


III. THE DEIR FAILS TO DESCRIBE A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES.

The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") provides that "it is the policy of the state that publicagencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigationmeasures available which would substantially lessen the significant effects of such project....” Pub. Res.Code § 21002. Toward this end, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines1 require that an EIR must describe “areasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and publicparticipation.” Pub. Res. Code § 21100; CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(a); See also CEQA Guidelines, §15126.6(b) ([“T]he discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its locationwhich are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even ifthese alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would bemore costly”). In fact, the California Supreme Court has held that the discussion of project alternativesand mitigation measures is “[t]he core of an EIR. …”Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors,52 Cal.3d 553, 564 (1990).

Further, an EIR “must produce information sufficient to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so faras environmental aspects are concerned.” San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of SanBernardino, 155 Cal.App.3d 738, 750-751 (1984). And, before decision-makers may approve a project itmust make specific findings about why alternatives which result in fewer impacts are infeasible. CEQAGuidelines, §§15002(a)(3) and 15021 (a)(2). These findings must be based on evidence that the approvalof the proposed project followed a meaningful consideration of alternatives and must delineate theanalytical route from the evidence to the finding that a particular alternative is not feasible. See MountainLion Foundation v. Fish and Game Commission, 16 Cal. 4th 105, 134 (1997).

The DEIR for this project simply does not live up to its task of selecting and analyzing a reasonablechoice of alternatives.

1 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, §§ 15000 et. seq.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

As discussed in Topical Response 5, the DEIR meets the spirit and intent of Section 15126.6(Consideration and Discussion of Alternatives to the Proposed Project) of the CEQA Guidelines. Onpages VI-1 through VI-20, the DEIR assesses five alternatives to the proposed project that reduce oravoid potentially significant impacts of the proposed project and feasibly attain most of the project’s basicobjectives. Those alternatives include: Alternative 1: No Project/Existing Conditions to Remain;Alternative 2: No Closure of Gorham Avenue; Alternative 3: Reduced Height/Density; Alternative 4:Alternate Use (Office); and, Alternative 5: Alternative Sites.

Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states, in part:

…An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider areasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decisionmaking andpublic participation…. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternativesto be discussed other than the rule of reason.

The reader is referred to Topical Response 5 for further discussion regarding the project’s alternatives.


A. The DEIR's Discussion of Alternative No. 2 (No Closure of Gorham Avenue) isInadequate and Misleading

As set forth above, the vacation of Gorham Avenue will cause serious traffic disruption; yet other than theobligatory “no project” alternative, only one alternative analyzes a project that keeps this heavily traveledstreet open. And that alternative (no. 2, “No Gorham Avenue Closure") provides that the entirety of theproposed development be shoe horned onto the remaining (smaller) property. Simply put, it takes 55,000square feet of development now planned for one acre and piles it onto a site at least one-third smaller (seeDEIR p. III-4).

Quite unsurprisingly, the DEIR then concludes that the aesthetic impacts of this alternative will be greaterbecause the perceived density would be greater, the buildings would be taller (although the "overallheight of the buildings would not exceed that of the proposed project”) and there would be less area foropen space, including public plazas, However, as the DEIR admits, the “No Closure of Gorham Avenue”alternative still results in a less than significant impact on aesthetics.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The vacation of Gorham Avenue is not expected to cause serious traffic disruption. The analysis ofpotential project related traffic impacts at the intersection of Barrington Avenue and Gorham Avenue aredescribed in the DEIR in Section IV.F, Transportation/Circulation and are summarized on Table IV.F-11,page IV.F-35 of the DEIR. The project impacts consider the potential net new trips due to the proposedcommercial development, as well as the rerouting of existing trips on the local street system as a result ofthe proposed closure of Gorham Avenue between Barrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. Seepages IV.F-25 through IV.F-28 of the DEIR for a discussion of the Gorham Avenue closure trafficanalysis.

As shown in Table IV.F-11, potential project related traffic impacts (i.e., due to the commercial projectand the Gorham Avenue closure) at the Barrington Avenue/Gorham Avenue intersection are forecasted tobe less than significant. In fact, an improvement of operations is forecasted at this location due to theconversion of the intersection from the existing four-leg configuration to a three-leg intersection. Theremoval of the westerly Gorham Avenue leg reduces the number of conflicting movements at theintersection, thereby improving overall traffic flow both on Barrington Avenue and Gorham Avenue.Thus, no impacts to access are anticipated to the existing commercial buildings located east of BarringtonAvenue.

The reader is referred to Topical Response 8 for a more detailed analysis of the traffic impacts related tothe requested Gorham Avenue vacation.

With respect to aesthetic impacts, neither the proposed project nor Alternative 2 would result insignificant aesthetic impacts. The project’s aesthetic impacts are discussed in the DEIR at pages IV.L-13through IV.L-20; the aesthetic impacts of Alternative 2 are presented on pages VI-9 and VI-10..


Indeed, the only other articulated draw back to “No Closure of Gorham Avenue" is the unexplainedcomment that the need to build a deeper underground garage means that the “feasibility of providingsufficient parking on-site to serve the proposed project uses could be called into question". (DEIR, pg IV-10). This nearly off hand remark is a far cry from the required reasoned analysis of why this alternative,which would result in lower transportation and circulation impacts than the proposed project, is notfeasible. For example, the required parking could be developed beneath Gorham Avenue pursuant to a“subsurface” vacation. According to the DEIR, a subsurface vacation is already proposed forapproximately 140 feet under the sidewalk and out to the curb line along San Vicente Boulevard. (DEIR,


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

p. III-I.) Thus, there is no reason why such a subsurface vacation could not be used to provide therequired parking for Alternative No. 2.

RESPONSE:

In order to provide adequate circulation to ensure the subterranean garage functions properly, the entirefootprint of the proposed project is required. For Alternative No. 2, not only would it be necessary toobtain a subsurface vacation below Gorham Avenue, but it would also be necessary to demolish GorhamAvenue and the corner building, build a subterranean garage in the configuration for the proposed project,and then rebuild Gorham Avenue and the corner building. Consequently, the alternative is neitherpractical nor financially feasible.


B. The DEIR Must Address Other Alternatives That Would Permit Gorham Avenue to RemainOpen.

As indicated above, Alternative No. 2 has been artificially described in such a way as to make it appearinfeasible or environmentally undesirable. As such, it is an improper “strawman” alternative that hasapparently been designed to make the proposed project look better.

In order to ensure that the DEIR permits “a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmentalaspects are concerned," the DEIR should discuss at least two other reasonable alternatives that wouldpermit Gorham Avenue to remain open. First, the DEIR should discuss an alternative that would leaveGorham Avenue open with the balance of the site developed in such a way that the increased impact onaesthetics would be reduced (i.e. by providing for more open space) while assuring that sufficient on-siteparking could be constructed. The mere fact that such an alternative may result in less floor area ordiminished profits for the developer is not a proper basis for its rejection. See Guidelines, 15126.6(b)(“[T]he discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which arecapable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if thesealternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be morecostly").


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The DEIR need only contain a reasonable range of alternatives, and has done so. Alternative No. 2 is areasonable alternative to the project, notwithstanding the commenter’s claim that it could have beendefined otherwise.

With regard to the commenter’s proposed alternative that would permit Gorham Avenue to remain openwith the balance developed so as to include less floor area, the CEQA Guidelines do not, as thecommenter implies, require the analysis of such an alternative. First, a range of reasonable alternativeshas already been proposed. Second, the particular alternative proposed by the commenter does not meetan essential criterion for selection of alternatives set out in the Guidelines, i.e., it does not have thepotential to “avoid or substantially lessen any significant effect of the project”. The only significanteffect of the project after mitigation is construction noise, and the construction of a somewhat smallerproject does not have the potential to avoid or substantially lessen this effect.


In order to address the alleged safety concerns regarding traffic heading east and north on GorhamAvenue from San Vicente Boulevard through the unsignalized intersection of Gorham Avenue andBarrington Avenue, this alternative could include making Gorham Avenue a one-way street heading westand south from Barrington Avenue to San Vicente Boulevard.

RESPONSE:

The commenter’s proposed variation on the alternative that would permit Gorham Avenue to remain openas a one-way street heading southwesterly does not have the potential to “avoid or substantially lessen anysignificant effect of the project”. The only significant effect of the project after mitigation is constructionnoise, and the construction of a somewhat smaller project with Gorham one-way southwesterly does nothave the potential to avoid or substantially lessen this effect. This proposed alternative may “addresssafety concerns” as suggested by the commenter. However, the proposed traffic mitigation for thisproject, which includes widening of Barrington south-bound and a designated right turn lane, alsoaddresses these same safety concerns.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


Second, the DEIR fails to discuss the obvious alternative of keeping Gorham Avenue open by developingthe project through the use of a bridge over the Gorham Avenue right-of-way. This type of constructionhas been used elsewhere in the City, and there is no indication whatsoever that it could not be employedin this case.

RESPONSE:

A reasonable range of alternatives has already been proposed. The commenter’s proposed alternative thatwould permit Gorham Avenue to remain open through the use of a bridge over the Gorham Avenue right-of-way would merely allow Gorham Avenue to continue carrying through traffic, but does not have thepotential to “avoid or substantially lessen any significant effect of the project”. The only significanteffect of the project after mitigation is construction noise, and the construction of a project with a bridgeover Gorham Avenue does not have the potential to avoid or substantially lessen this effect.

Moreover, the developer has concluded that this alternative is not practical for the following reason: Thecorner “island” parcel is 3,042 square feet in area. Following the dedication of 1,694 square feet for streetwidening purposes (15 feet of property along Barrington Avenue plus the large radius turn at the corner ofBarrington and San Vicente), the corner island parcel will be 1,348 square feet. This parcel and therequired street improvement dedications are shown in Figure FEIR-3, presented in Section III,Corrections and Additions. Building setbacks would also be required (i.e., 10 feet for the front yard, andthree (3) feet for the side yards), resulting in a further reduction in the remaining buildable area. Whenthe required street improvements and the building setbacks are combined, the remaining buildable area isapproximately 365 square feet. The use of a bridge over Gorham Avenue, such as that suggested by thecommenter, will not work as there is insufficient space on the island to build stairs and a handicap ramp.Therefore, an elevator would be required. The bridge foundation/elevator would require a footprint of atleast 250 square feet of the 365 square feet available for building, leaving approximately 115 square feetavailable for lease. In other words, a bridge would occupy the entire site, and thus would literally be abridge to nowhere.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


The DEIR fails to explain why either of these obvious alternatives were excluded from consideration.This lack of disclosure violates CEQA. See CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(a) (“The lead agency isresponsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose itsreasoning for selecting those alternatives.”). The Property Owners thus respectfully request that the DEIRbe revised to include a discussion of the above two alternatives that keep Gorham Avenue open. At a bareminimum, the DEIR must be revised to explain why these alternatives are not included.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Response to Comment SCHMIDTX-15.


IV. THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS INCOMPLETE

The DEIR acknowledges that the project will require the vacation of approximately 180 linear feet ofGorham Avenue between Barrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. However, nowhere does theDEIR mention the legal requirements for such a vacation.

In order to fully understand the nature of the proposed project, a brief discussion of the legal prerequisitesfor the street vacation should be included in the DEIR. As discussed below, there is no indication thatthese legal requirements can be satisfied in this case.

RESPONSE:

The Public Streets, Highways and Service Easements Vacation Law governs the vacation of publicstreets, highways and service easements (see Cal. Sts. & High. Code §§ 8300 et. seq.). For the proposedproject, the approval process for the vacation request must follow the procedure outlined in TopicalResponse 4.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


A. Gorham Avenue is Needed For Public Use.

In order to vacate Gorham Avenue between San Vicente Boulevard and Barrington Avenue as proposed,the City Council must find that this portion of Gorham Avenue is “unnecessary for present or prospectivepublic use....” Streets and Highways Code § 8324. In this case, however, the portion of Gorham Avenueproposed to be vacated is currently being used by an estimated 6,000 vehicles each day! (DEIR, p. IV.F-6.) Furthermore, the proposed vacation will permanently interrupt what is now a continuous street nearlyone mile in length, and will block the primary route currently being used by most of the over 2,000Vehicles exiting our clients’ existing commercial development on a daily basis. Clearly, the evidencedoes not support a finding that this portion of Gorham Avenue is "unnecessary" for public use.

RESPONSE:

The commenter’s opinion that the City cannot make a finding that Gorham Avenue is “unnecessary forpresent or prospective public use” pursuant to state law is not relevant to whether the project has asignificant impact under CEQA. Therefore, an evaluation of the City’s ability to make this ultimatefinding is not an essential component of the DEIR. However, the proposed street improvements for theintersection of Barrington Ave. and San Vicente Blvd., together with the other traffic mitigationmeasures, fully mitigate all traffic impacts from the project and provide a basis for a finding by the Citythat Gorham is unnecessary for present or prospective public use.


B. The Proposed Street Vacation Primarily Services a Private Purpose.

It is well-established in the case law that a public street may not be vacated where the primary benefit ofthe vacation would accrue to a developer of the abutting land rather than the public at large. CitizensAgainst Gated Enclaves v. Whitley Heights Civic Association, 23 Cal.App.4th 812, 820 (1994); Peoplev. City of Los Angeles, 62 Cal.App. 781 (1923). In this case, the primary (if not exclusive) purpose of theproposed street vacation is to accommodate a private development project. Significantly, the onlyobjectives of the project discussed in the DEIR are those of the applicant. (DEIR, p III-2.)


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The commenter’s interpretation of case law on the standard for street vacation is not relevant to whetherthe impact has a significant impact under CEQA. Therefore, an evaluation of the case law on thisstandard is not an essential component of the DEIR. Similarly, if the City is precluded under this or otherlaws from vacating the street, this will simply affect the applicant’s ability to obtain one of the requestedproject approvals, i.e., the street vacation. Such an inability would not render the DEIR deficient.

In any event, the cases cited by the commenter on the issue of benefit do not conflict with vacation in thisparticular instance. In these cases, there was no benefit accruing to the public from the vacation. Here, asthe Draft EIR evidences, the vacation of this small portion of Gorham Ave. would serve numerous publicpurposes, most notably the elimination of traffic and pedestrian hazards associated with its irregularapproach to San Vicente Boulevard. Moreover, while there would no longer be through traffic onGorham, traffic congestion in the vicinity would actually be reduced due to a more logical traffic patternand substantial traffic improvements funded by the project applicant. (DEIR, pp. 25, 28, 36-41.)

The commenter is incorrect in stating that the only objectives in the DEIR “are those of the applicant.”The DEIR contains objectives developed for the project by the applicant. However, these objectives,which include provision of goods and services, public plazas and other pedestrian oriented gatheringplaces and encouraging pedestrian activity, all involve benefit to the City and its residents rather than thedeveloper.


V. THE DEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS OFTHE PROJECT DURING CONSTRUCTION.

The DEIR notes, without discussion, that the project will involve the removal and export of 58,000 cubicyards of material. (DEIR, p. I-4.) If it is conservatively assumed that each truck will carry 20 cubic yardsof material, this means that the project will involve approximately 5,800 truck “trips” over alreadycongested streets (2,900 empty trucks arriving and 2,900 loaded trucks leaving the site). The potentialeffects of these truck trips relative to traffic, public safety, and dust from trucks must be evaluated.Among other things, this evaluation must include a discussion of the destination of the export materialand the proposed haul route.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

Effects on traffic in the area due to construction of the project are anticipated to be short-term in nature.Extended closures of travel lanes on Barrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard to accommodateproject-related construction activities are not anticipated. The City’s Department of Building and Safetyand Department of Transportation will issue specific requirements for construction (i.e., haul route,staging, etc.) prior to issuance of a building permit for the project.

The excavation of 58,000 cubic yards is anticipated to take approximately one-and-a-half months tocomplete. This estimate is based on the following assumptions: 1) average truck hauling capacity isapproximately 14 cubic yards; and 2) a single loader can load approximately 2,000 cubic yards per day.Therefore, the export operation will generate approximately 143 trucks per day, or about one truck everythree minutes. At the rate of 2,000 cubic yards per day, the export operation would take approximately 29working days, or approximately six five-day weeks.

While this truck activity will contribute to existing congested traffic conditions in the Brentwood area, theeffect will be a short-term nuisance, rather than a long-term adverse effect on the environment.Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant.


The DEIR acknowledges that the project will be under construction for a period of 18 mouths, and that itwill have unavoidable adverse effects on the environment during construction with respect to noise.(DEIR, pp. I-9, I-15.) However, there is no meaningful discussion of the other potential construction-related effects of the project. For example, there is no discussion of potential traffic interruptions duringconstruction due to temporary lane closures, ingress and egress of construction vehicles, etc. At aminimum, the DEIR must discuss a “staging” plan for construction equipment and materials as well asadditional mitigation measures to minimize disruption surrounding businesses and residences.

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment SCHMIDTX-25 for a discussion of potential traffic impacts related toconstruction activities at the site.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


VI. THE POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT ON PUBLIC SERVICES MUST BEIDENTIFIED AS UNAVOIDABLE.

The DEIR notes that the “proposed project site is located in an area characterized by a deficient watersystem that is incapable of meeting fire flow requirements for the uses located in the area,” and that “thissystem will need to be upgraded or expanded in order to meet the fire flow requirement.” (DEIR, p. I-11.)However, the DEIR then improperly attempts to dismiss this potential impact by stating that “thisupgrade/expansion would be the responsibility of the City to implement," and that “the proposed projectwould only be responsible for contributing its fair share of the cost to implement the improvements.” Id.

Since the project developer is only being required to “contribute” toward the required“upgrade/expansion” of the water system, and since there is no indication in the DEIR when, if ever, thefull "upgrade/expansion" will be undertaken by the City, it seems clear that the potential effects of theproject on public services have not been fully mitigated. Consequently, unless the City, as furtherance ofwhatever “public” objectives are to be served by the project (if any), is prepared to complete the fullupgrade of the water system as a mitigation measure, this potential adverse effect must be classified as"unavoidable."

RESPONSE:

The impact of the project on fire protection is insignificant without mitigation. (DEIR p. IV.J-5 throughJ-6.) The DEIR notes that the area surrounding the project is characterized by a deficient water systemwhich is incapable of meeting fire flow requirements; however, this is a description of the existingenvironment under CEQA – not a statement that the project will have a significant impact. Indeed, theaddition of the project does not appreciably worsen this existing condition, as fire flow rates are notappreciably reduced by the addition of the project. Nor does any impact of the project constitute acumulative impact, as none of the related projects is located within the area served by the existing fireflow system. (DEIR, p. IV.J-6.)

Despite the fact that the project will not have a significant impact on fire protection, the DEIR hasnonetheless proposed a mitigation measure to address “significant impacts related to the existing deficientwater system,” i.e., a fair-share contribution to the cost of implementing improvements to the system asdetermined by the Department of Water and Power and/or the Fire Department. (DEIR, p. I-12; IV.J-6.)Because no significant impact was identified for the project, this mitigation measure is not required byCEQA, but was nonetheless recommended to assist in improving the existing water system. Thus, thecommenter’s claim that the measure will not mitigate the existing condition, even if true, does not renderthe DEIR inadequate under CEQA.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


VII. CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, the DEIR must be revised and recirculated for additional publiccomment.

RESPONSE:

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, recirculation of the DEIR is not required. The reader isreferred to Topical Response 3 for a discussion of the conditions that require recircualtion of a DEIR priorto its certification.


MEMORANDUM

FROM: Shashank Patil

TO: Pam Schmidt, Esq.

DATE: December 4, 2000

Per your request, Parsons Transportation Group (PTG) conducted a traffic engineering review of theDEIR prepared for "The Park", 11703-11715 San Vicente Boulevard (hereinafter referred to as Project).The following tasks were completed in this review:

� Conduct field investigation at the intersections adjacent to the Project site for lane geometricsand signal phasing.

� Review the traffic analysts conducted by Crain & Associates and incorporated in the DEIR.This review focuses on any discrepancies/errors, omissions and deviations from Los AngelesDepartment of Transportation (LADOT) policies and procedures to conduct a traffic impactstudy, as well as standard professional practices and procedures used in addressing trafficengineering issues/concerns; and


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

� Examine the concerns on the rerouting of existing traffic, due to the proposed vacation ofGorham Avenue as part of the Project.

COMMENTS ON THE DEIR

Due to the limited timeframe to complete a review of the DEIR, a thorough review of only the PM Peakhour Project traffic conditions was performed. The PM peak hour also typically represents a worst-casetraffic condition. Based on our traffic engineering review of the DEIR, we have the following comments:

Related Projects

� A four-story apartment complex, currently being built on the northwest corner of theintersection of Montana Avenue and Barrington Avenue, was not included in the assessmentof cumulative background traffic volumes for the analysis in the Traffic Study. Given itsproximity to the Project, additional trips to be generated by the 15-unit apartment complexduring the peak hours should have been estimated and included in the analysis of cumulativetraffic impacts.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Topical Response 6.


� ITE trip generation rates/formulas for the office use shown for the calculation of trips fromrelated projects are incorrect:

The following rates/equations are shown:OfficeDaily: Ln(T) = 7.68 Ln(A) ÷ 3.654AM Peak Hour Ln(T) = 7.67 Ln(A) ÷ 1.558; I/B = 88%, O/B = 12%PM Peak Hour Ln(T) = 1.21(A) ÷ 79.295; I/B = 17%, O/B = 83%

The correct formulas are as follows:OfficeDaily: Ln(T) = 0.768 Ln(A) ÷ 3.654AM Peak Hour Ln(T) = 0.797 Ln(A) ÷ 1.558; I/B = 88%, O/B = 12%PM Peak Hour Ln(T) = 1.121(A) ÷ 79.295; I/B = 17%, O/B = 83%


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

Where T = Number of trips, A = Office floor area in 1,000 square feet, I/B = Inbound, O/B =Outbound

RESPONSE:

The methodology for forecasting future trips due to the related projects is provided in the DEIR on pagesIV.F-10 through IV.F-14. The applicable trip rates from the Trip Generation manual published by theInstitute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) are listed on Table IV.F-5.

The commenter noted a typographical error with respect to the Office land use trip generation rate for thePM peak hour. The correct formula for the PM peak hour Office trip rate is as follows: T = 1.121(A) +79.295 where T is number of trips and A is floor area (per 1,000 square feet). This revision has beenmade in the Corrections and Additions section.

The related project trip generation forecasts provided on Table IV.F-6 are correct and do not requirerevision.


� The DEIR does not provide graphics displaying the assignment of related project traffic onthe study area roadway network. It is a requirement per LADOT’s Traffic Study Policies andProcedures, and must be clearly indicated to assess cumulative traffic impacts.

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment SCHMIDTX-6 for a discussion of the methodology forecasting future pre-project trips on the local street system due to the related projects. The trip assignment of the relatedprojects was submitted to LADOT for review and approval prior to publication of the DEIR trafficanalysis.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


On-Street Parking

The DEIR does not address the loss of on-street parking spaces in the portion of Gorham Avenue beingvacated. The DEIR only mentions that “the proposed project is not expected to significantly impact on-street parking after completion due to the on-site parking garage.” However, the on-site garage would beprimarily restricted to the patrons of the Project only. The proposed elimination of on-street parkingspaces on Gorham Avenue west of Barrington Avenue, and shortage of parking in the Project vicinity,would force existing users of these spaces (who would not necessarily be patrons of the Park Project) topark elsewhere. This, in turn would increase pedestrian activities in the area and potentially impactpedestrian safety. The impact of lost parking spaces should be thoroughly analyzed and mitigationmeasures must be identified to reduce impacts.

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment SCHMIDTX-12 for a discussion of on-street parking in the project vicinity.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


Congestion Management Program

LADOT’s Traffic Study Policies and Procedures clearly state that “if based on the congestion (sic)Management Program (CMP) guidelines and criteria, the traffic impact analysis (TIA) identifies noimpacted regional facilities, further CMP traffic analysis is not required. However, Projects must stillconsider transit impacts and provide a calculation of CMP “credits” and “debits” for the Project.” TheDEIR does not present any such computations. The traffic study should include an analysis of transitimpact of the Project.

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment SCHMIDTX-9 for a discussion of potential project-related impacts to publictransit services. The Congestion Management Program (CMP) for Los Angeles County as administeredby the Metropolitan Transportation Authority does not require the calculation of CMP transportationcredits and debits associated with the project to be included in the DEIR.


Residential Street Traffic Intrusion

Even though the environmental setting section of the DEIR refers to the project study area as beingprimarily residential, there is no analysis or mention in the DEIR of local residential street impacts. It isrequired per LADOT’s Traffic Study Policies and Procedures in the conduct of a TIA. The DEIR is,therefore, deemed inadequate in addressing a very important traffic issue.

RESPONSE:

Project related trips are not anticipated to use single family residential streets for access, with theexception of residents who live in the area and choose to patronize the commercial uses at the site afterproject build-out. Accordingly, LADOT did not require an analysis of potential traffic impacts toresidential streets to be included in the traffic analysis provided in the DEIR.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


Trip Distribution

The trip assignment of Project trips, specifically for the outbound traffic from the Project driveway, hasbeen conducted in an illogical/unreasonable manner.

� Seventeen (17) Percent of outbound trips destined to the east and south via San VicenteBoulevard/Federal Avenue and Barrington Avenue, respectively, were assumed to make rightturns on to Montana Avenue. Further, these trips were then assumed to make right-turns fromMontana Avenue on to Barrington Avenue to travel south or east to their destinations.Routing of these trips in this manner is unrealistic. It involves circuitous travel pattern istherefore deemed impractical. Patrons would primarily look for the shortest and least time-consuming route to reach to their destinations and that route would be to make a U-turn at theintersection of Gorham Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard, The anticipated trafficmovement at the proposed median opening on San Vicente Boulevard would be seriouslyimpacted by these movements and only add to traffic operational problems at this location asdiscussed later in this Memorandum.

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment SCHMIDTX-11 for a discussion of the proposed site access configuration atthe project. The project trip distribution percentages referenced by the commenter is provided in theDEIR on Figure IV.F-3, page IV.F-22.

The driveways for many existing commercial developments located along San Vicente Boulevard inBrentwood are provided at mid-block locations in the area of the existing raised median. Therefore, right-turn only movements are permitted at most existing commercial driveways along San Vicente Boulevard.Thus, in lieu of left-turns out of commercial driveways, motorists are required to make u-turns at breaksin the median, or a series of right-turns around the block. Accordingly, the project trip assignmentassumes a combination of u-turns and right-turns for motorists exiting the project site with destinations tothe south and east. As noted by the commenter, approximately 17% of project outbound trips areestimated to make right-turns via Montana Avenue and Barrington Avenue to travel south and east. Inaddition, 22% and 27% of outbound project trips are anticipated to complete u-turns on San VicenteBoulevard at the Gorham Avenue and Montana Avenue intersections, respectively.

The analysis of potential project related traffic impacts based on the assumed project trip assignment aredescribed in the DEIR in Section IV.F, Transportation/Circulation and are summarized on Table IV.F-11,page IV.F-35 of the DEIR. As shown, prior to consideration of mitigation measures, the project isforecasted to result in significant traffic impacts at three intersections. Table IV.F-12, page IV.F-40 of the


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

DEIR indicates that with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, the traffic impacts ofthe project are reduced to less than significant levels.


Rerouting of Existing Traffic

The steps involved in the rerouting of existing trips, with the vacation of Gorham Avenue, is not shown.The DEIR states that the traffic redistribution was based on discussions with and was approved by theLADOT staff. However, the distribution appears to be too illogical and incorrect. The following twoexamples show that the redistribution was not correctly done:

1. In the year 2004 without the Project, at the intersection of Gorham Avenue and SanVicente Boulevard the sum of southbound through volume, westbound left-turn volumeand eastbound right-turn volume turning on to Gorham Avenue is determined (fromFigure IV.F-7b) to be 143 (42+53+48). With the redistribution of traffic, one expects tosee additional 70 Project vehicles at this intersection for the same movements for a totalof 213. With the proposed closure of Gorham Avenue, the 42 southbound trips would beforced to other routes before accessing Gorham Avenue. The exhibit, displaying year2004 Traffic Volumes with Project shows only 185 vehicles instead of 213 at theintersection of San Vicente Boulevard and Gorham Avenue. This clearly indicates thatthe redistribution was not done correctly.

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment SCHMIDTX-2 for a discussion of the analysis of potential traffic impactsassociated with the proposed closure of Gorham Avenue between Barrington Avenue and San VicenteBoulevard. Also see Response to Comment MINASSIANX-8 for a detailed review of the reassignmentof trips on the local street system provided in the DEIR due to the proposed closure of Gorham Avenue.

The commenter is referencing the forecasted future pre-project PM peak hour traffic volumes shown onFigure IV.F-7b, page IV.F-32 of the DEIR, and the future with project PM peak hour traffic volumesshown on Figure IV.F-8b, page IV.F-34 of the DEIR. The commenter neglects to note that a portion oftrips currently utilizing Gorham Avenue would be transferred to Montana Avenue, which runs parallel toGorham Avenue one block to the west. Further, it is anticipated that these re-routed trips would remainon Montana Avenue south of San Vicente Boulevard, rather than continue “cutting through” GorhamAvenue as they do today. Thus, in comparing the two figures, it is shown that the southbound throughtraffic on Montana Avenue at the San Vicente Boulevard intersection is calculated to increase by 54


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

vehicles in the PM peak hour due to the project, wholly attributable to the re-routed trips due to theproposed closure of Gorham Avenue.


2. At the intersection of Montana Avenue and Barrington Avenue, forty-one (41)southbound through trips were eliminated in the redistribution process. These trips arecurrently traveling on Barrington Avenue and making a right-turn on to Gorham Avenueeither to access the existing uses on Gorham Avenue and/or San Vicente Boulevard or togo further south on Gorham Avenue. In the redistribution used in the Traffic Study, thesewere shown to make a right turn on to Montana Avenue and travel westbound orsouthbound instead of eastbound toward the intersection of San Vicente Boulevard andGorham Avenue. Logically, even with the closure of Gorham Avenue, these trips wouldcontinue southbound on Barrington Avenue and make a right-turn on San VicenteBoulevard at the intersection of San Vicente Boulevard and Barrington Avenue and thenaccess the uses on San Vicente Boulevard or make a left-turn on to Gorham Avenue. Thiswould result in Project impact at various locations.

RESPONSE:

See Responses to Comments SCHMIDTX-2 and SCHMIDTX-36. The reassignment of trips travelingsouthbound on Barrington Avenue and turning right at Gorham Avenue (forecasted at 79 PM peak hourtrips on Figure IV.F-8b, page IV.F-34) are anticipated to be rerouted to both Montana Avenue, as well ascontinuing south to turn right at San Vicente Boulevard.


The following four-step process should have been used in rerouting traffic due to Gorham AvenueClosure:

1. Assign the trips generated by the on-site existing uses at the five affected locations. Theselocations are: Barrington Avenue and Montana Avenue, Barrington Avenue and GorhamAvenue, Barrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard, San Vicente Boulevard andGorham Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard and Montana Avenue. The sameassumptions as used in the DEIR in regards to Project trip generation, distribution andpass-by trips should be used to assign the trips to/from the site.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

2. Remove these trips from the traffic volumes projected for the affected locations to obtainthe year 2004 traffic volumes without Project.

3. The remaining traffic using Gorham Avenue should now be redistributed in a logicalmanner in order to facilitate and maintain their existing travel pattern.

4. Add Project related traffic to obtain the Year 2004 with Project traffic volumes at theaffected locations.

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment SCHMIDTX-2 regarding the analysis of the proposed Gorham Avenueclosure as provided in the DEIR. The analysis procedure suggested by the commenter is consistent withthe methodology described in the DEIR.


Traffic Operational Issues

The DEIR did not adequately analyze potential traffic operational issues in connection with proposedmodifications in roadway travel patterns.

� A median opening has been proposed on San Vicente Boulevard to allow Project relatedtraffic enter the driveway from eastbound San Vicente Boulevard. This opening would beonly a short distance away from the signalized intersection of San Vicente Boulevard andGorham Avenue. Approximately 60 vehicles are projected to use the opening during the PMpeak hour. These vehicles will adversely impact the operation of traffic signal at the adjacentintersections and cause queuing and delays to the through traffic. Additionally, the motoristswould potentially wait a long time to find an acceptable gap in the westbound San VicenteBoulevard traffic in order to enter the driveway.

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment SCHMIDTX-11 for a discussion of the proposed site access configuration asdescribed in the DEIR. Figure IV.F-5b, page IV.F-27 in the DEIR indicates that 60 vehicles in the PMpeak hour are anticipated to turn left into the project driveway from eastbound San Vicente Boulevard, orabout one car per minute. By comparison, the left-turn pocket proposed to accommodate project trafficturning left into the project site can store 6-7 vehicles without affecting through traffic on San Vicente


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

Boulevard. Therefore, the proposed left-turn pocket for eastbound San Vicente Boulevard providesadequate storage for vehicles turning left into the project site.


The DEIR mentions consideration of an alternative traffic access route for these vehicles but didnot analyze the option and discarded it due to congestion issues at the intersection of San VicenteBoulevard and Barrington Avenue. It is our opinion that, a traffic analysis should have includedall alternative access options and documented the results for comparisons. The comparison shouldhave been based not only on “existing congestion level" but also traffic operational and safetyissues, accessibility, practicability, and constructionability of the options.

RESPONSE:

The alternative access scenario cited by the commenter is described in the DEIR on page IV.F-25. Asnoted, this alternative considered right-turns only at the project driveway (i.e., no left-turns into theproject site from eastbound San Vicente Boulevard). As noted in the DEIR, this access scenario wouldhave created additional adverse impacts at the adjacent Barrington Avenue/San Vicente Boulevardintersection due to increased u-turn traffic from project vehicles attempting to reach the site driveway.Therefore, no additional analysis was provided or required.


� At the intersection of Gorham Avenue and Barrington Avenue, westbound left-turns fromGorham Avenue would be extremely difficult/impractical to make because of highsouthbound traffic volume on Barrington Avenue. Due to the proximity of the intersection ofSan Vicente Boulevard and Barrington Avenue these westbound vehicles would not haveadequate storage area available. Therefore, vehicles destined to travel westbound on SanVicente Boulevard from this location (including the heavy outbound traffic egressing fromthe existing bussiness (sic) parking garages on Gorham Place) would divert to Gorham Placeand access San Vicente Boulevard via Darlington Avenue. Gorham Place has a limitedcapacity and would not be able to handle the additional traffic demand. Alternatively,motorists would be forced to make a right-turn from westbound Gorham Avenue tonorthbound Barrington Avenue, then turn left on to Montana Avenue to finally access SanVicente Boulevard. In doing so, drivers would experience long delays in their travel time.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

The DEIR should have included an analysis of traffic operational delays resulting from thiskind of modifications in travel patterns.

RESPONSE:

See Response to Comment SCHMIDTX-2 for a discussion of the analysis of potential project relatedtraffic impacts at the intersection of Barrington Avenue and Gorham Avenue provided in the DEIR. Asdiscussed in the DEIR, an improvement of operations is forecasted at this location due to the conversionof the intersection from the existing four-leg configuration to a three-leg intersection. The removal of thewesterly Gorham Avenue leg reduces the number of conflicting movements at the intersection, therebyimproving overall traffic flow both on Barrington Avenue and Gorham Avenue. Thus, no impacts toaccess are anticipated to the existing commercial buildings located east of Barrington Avenue. SeeResponse to Comment SCHMIDTX-5 for a discussion of the potential diversion of existing trips toDarlington Avenue due to the closure of Gorham Avenue.

LETTER NO. AGRONX

Phyllis M. Agron11706 Montana Ave., #109Los Angeles, CA 90049


COMMENT NO. AGRONX-1:

Regarding the proposed closing/vacation of Gorham Avenue to accommodate the proposed development(The Park), my greatest concern is that of the increased traffic which seems to have trebled in the 22 yearsI have owned my condominium.

RESPONSE:

The analysis of potential project related traffic impacts are described in the DEIR in Section IV.F,Transportation/Circulation and are summarized on Table IV.F-11, page IV.F-35 of the DEIR. As shown,prior to consideration of mitigation measures, the project is forecasted to result in significant trafficimpacts at three intersections. Table IV.F-12, page IV.F-40 of the DEIR indicates that withimplementation of the recommended mitigation measures, the traffic impacts of the project are reduced toless than significant levels. The reader is also referred to Response to Comment CLEMENSX-1.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


The charm of Brentwood has been eroded by the development of Brentwood Gardens and the NortonPlaza (the proposed project almost mirrors Brentwood Gardens’ outdoor escalator and creates anexit/entrance similar to that of Norton Plaza just adjacent to the driveway at Longs Drugs!

RESPONSE:

The DEIR addresses the project’s aesthetic impacts at pages IV.L-1 through IV.L-20. The DEIRacknowledges that no empirical criteria exist with which to assess visual impacts in urban areas and,therefore, the assessment of such impacts is inherently subjective. Nevertheless, the DEIR puts forth thefollowing criteria to be used to determine impact significance:

� the development of an incongruous structure relative to its location;

� loss of a major public scenic view;

� loss of a major open space resource; and

� inconsistency of the proposed project with any objectives of relevant City policy, with respect toarchitectural requirements.

With the foregoing criteria in mind, the DEIR concludes that aesthetic and view impacts resulting fromthe development of the proposed project would be less than significant.


There are seven apartment/condominium buildings on the south side of Montana Ave. betweenBarrington Ave. and the alley. The SOLE ACCESS TO THE STREET IS THIS ALLEY. Hasconsideration been taken to recognize the probable inaccessibility by the seven buildings whose garagesfeed into the alley?

RESPONSE:



_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


Additional concern is the increased traffic which will occur once the project is completed; we have had torequest repair to eliminate the ruts and potholes in the alley due to the use of the alley which sometimesresembles a speedway. Which measures will be in place to mitigate the additional traffic which willresult from delivery, service and trash trucks servicing the project?

RESPONSE:

No significant impacts resulting from additional delivery, service and trash truck traffic have beenidentified. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(3).The reader is also referred to Topical Response 9.


It is not my desire to stop progress; surely the Planning Commission by now, however, must be aware ofthe four multiple dwellings under construction to further add to congestion.

RESPONSE:



As for handing over a city street to a developer, how will 53 coordinated signals within the city helpreduce congestion in our area from Bringham to Bundy on San Vicente Boulevard?

RESPONSE:

The project traffic mitigation measures referenced by the commenter are summarized in the DEIR onpages IV.F-38 through IV.F-41. The mitigation measures are also discussed in the July 26, 2000 LADOTletter which provides a summary of the project traffic impacts and recommended mitigation measures (see


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

Comment Letter TAMX). The project impacts at the Barrington Avenue/San Vicente Boulevardintersection are mitigated through the combination of the recommended physical traffic improvements, aswell as the installation of the ATCS traffic signal upgrade. The project impacts at the BarringtonAvenue/Montana Avenue intersection are mitigated through the installation of the ATCS traffic signalupgrade. Thus, the implementation of other traffic mitigation measures at the BarringtonAvenue/Montana Avenue intersection are not required. LADOT has determined that the ATCS trafficsignal upgrade in the project area will reduce motorist delay by allowing traffic signals to be betterresponsive to changes in traffic flow patterns.

The ATCS implementation area encompasses approximately 53 existing signalized intersections,including the segment of San Vicente Boulevard from Wilshire Boulevard to Bundy Drive.

LETTER NO. KRISILOFFX

Flora Gil Krisiloff508 Avondale AvenueLos Angeles, CA 90049


COMMENT NO. KRISILOFFX-1:

The EIR Subcommittee of the Brentwood Community Council (BCC) submits the following commentsregarding the above named Draft EIR (DEIR).

In general, this DEIR lacks accurate and adequate information in many sections. It is seriouslyincomplete, outdated and fails to adequately analyze the environmental consequences to arrive at accurateconclusions and mitigation measures. The DEIR is extremely deficient in the discussion of the closure ofGorham Avenue. It is deficient in the examination of meaningful alternatives, the consistency analysiswith the various land use plans, the transportation and circulation analysis and the identification of relatedprojects.

RESPONSE:

The commenter provides a summary of more detailed comments provided in the body of the text.Responses to specific issues are provided below in Responses to Comments KRISILOFFX-2 throughKRISILOFFX-52.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


I. The range of alternatives to the proposed project which are reviewed are inadequate, do not fosterinformed decision making and meaningful public participation and do not adequately focus onalternatives capable of avoiding or substantially lessening adverse effects of the project.

CEQA Guidelines 15126.6 - Consideration and Discussion of Alternatives to the Proposed Project:

(a) “An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of theproject, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid orsubstantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of thealternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must considera reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making andpublic participation.”

(b) “Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project mayhave on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shallfocus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantiallylessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree theattainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.”

A. Three of the five alternatives reviewed are totally without merit:

Alternative 2: No Closure of Gorham Avenue (page I-18) is an erroneous alternative. The assumptionsand conclusions are invalid. The San Vicente Scenic Corridor Specific Plan does not permit an FAR of2.5. On June 23, 2000, the Los Angeles City Council deleted the outdated Section 14 from the SpecificPlan, thereby closing a loophole which would have thwarted the will of the voters when Proposition Uwas passed in 1988 to lower the density within Height District 1 to a 1.5 FAR.

RESPONSE:

The referenced amendment of the Specific Plan does have the effect of reducing the allowable floor-arearatio (FAR) for the project site to 1.5. This renders Alternative 2, which contemplates an FAR of 1.9,infeasible absent an additional land use approval to override the maximum 1.5 FAR.

However, this does not make Alternative 2 an “erroneous alternative” as posited by the commenter. TheFAR of 1.9 contemplated in Alternative 2 was an appropriate FAR under the Specific Plan at the relevantstage of the environmental review process for this project. The effective date of Ordinance No. 173,381,


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

which deleted the portion of the Specific Plan that allowed for a 2.5 FAR, was August 7, 2000. A noticeof preparation was published for the proposed project, with the 30-day comment period ending December3, 1998. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, the existing environmental conditions, including land useconditions such as ordinances and specific plans, are described as they exist at the time the Notice ofPreparation is published. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125(a).) Therefore, the DEIR properly analyzed theproject with reference to the Specific Plan provisions in effect at that time. The fact that subsequent to theNOP, the Specific Plan was changed to reduce the allowable FAR does not render the DEIR inadequate.

The project will be consistent with all provisions of the Specific Plan, as amended.


Alternative 4: Alternate Use (Office) is an erroneous alternative. Replacing the proposed project withstrictly office uses is inconsistent with the San Vicente Scenic Corridor Specific Plan. It is in directviolation of the Specific Plan. The purposes of the Specific Plan are to maintain neighborhood retail andpersonal service uses at ground floor level; to promote pedestrian scale and pedestrian amenities; and topreserve and enhance the ambiance of San Vicente Boulevard." (San Vicente Scenic Corridor SpecificPlan, Ordinance No. 153,639, Summary of Provisions, page 1-1, published by the City of Los Angeles,Dept. of City Planning Central Maps and Publications) This alternative would be inconsistent andenvironmentally detrimental.

RESPONSE:

Alternative 4, which provides for office uses, is not an “erroneous alternative” as posited by thecommenter. The project could be configured with solely office uses and remain consistent with theSpecific Plan. The Specific Plan shows a preference for neighborhood retail and personal service uses atground floor level and promotion of pedestrian use. However, a solely office use is permitted under thezoning, and is not expressly excluded by the Specific Plan as a permitted use. (Specific Plan, sec. 5(A).).Specifically, at the ground floor the frontage uses may include signs, parks and plazas, driveways andpedestrian entrances on 80 percent of the linear feet, and unrestricted uses on the remaining 20 percent ofthe linear feet. A solely office project could be configured to meet these requirements.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


Alternative 5: No effort is made to consider alternative sites -- "The City of Los Angeles cannot, however,approve development at an alternative site within the context of this project;” (page I-19)

RESPONSE:

The DEIR considers alternative sites at page VI-19. The purpose of an alternate site analysis is todetermine whether the development of a similar project at another location would reduce any of theproject’s significant impacts to a less than significant level. There is only one significant impact thatcannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, i.e. construction-related noise. Much of theconstruction-related noise is due to the operation of heavy equipment necessary to excavate thefoundation and subterranean parking structure. Consequently, construction of a similar project at anotherlocation would be expected to generate comparable levels of construction-related noise, and construction-related noise would remain significant.

Consideration of alternative sites for a project is primarily useful as a point of environmental comparisonfor the potential effects of the project located at other appropriate sites versus the effects of developmenton the proposed site. The use of an alternative site as a project alternative is a choice that is typicallycharacteristic of public agencies for certain new public facilities such as transportation systems, postoffices, fire stations, public parking structures, storage yards or government buildings. For these types ofprojects, the development of the facility itself is the primary consideration and the precise location withincertain parameters, is the secondary consideration. Based on its explicit site-specific objectives(presented in the Draft EIR at page III-2), such latitude is not available for the proposed project.

Moreover, while other vacant and/or redevelopable land may exist in the project locale, the projectapplicant can not reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to any other similar-sized propertyin the area. Given the time and expense that have already been invested in the proposed project site,implementing the project at another site may not be feasible from a timing or economic standpoint. Thus,the applicant's lack of control over alternative sites suggests that the construction of the project on anothersite does not present an alternative to the proposed project that can be accomplished in a successfulmanner.

Lastly, a proposal to permit the project at any other site would require a separate environmental review(including a potential consideration of other alternative sites). In light of these considerations, the choiceof an alternative site is not a feasible alternative to the proposed project. Thus, alternative sites are notconsidered a true "alternative" to the project as proposed and analyzed in this EIR.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


B. At minimum two additional alternatives should be analyzed: 1) no closure of Gorham withdevelopment to the maximum permitted under current zoning and 2) closure of Gorham withdevelopment to the maximum permitted under current zoning.

The no closure of Gorham with development to the maximum permitted alternative presents andquantifies what conditions could exist with the most intense use (i.e. the worst case scenario) undercurrent zoning without the closure of Gorham. Current zoning is C1.5-1VL which equates to an FAR of1.5 and a three stories, 45 feet height limit. Therefore the maximum commercial square footage permittedis approximately 42,900 square feet.

0.66 acres = approx. 28,600 sq. ft. X 1.5 FAR = approx. 42,900 sq. ft.(see DEIR page III-4 for figures used)

RESPONSE:

Alternatives to the proposed project are discussed in the DEIR at pages VI-1 through VI-20. A total offive alternatives are examined, including an alternative that discusses development of the project sitewithout the closure of Gorham Avenue. While the specific configuration suggested by the commenter hasnot been examined, the DEIR nevertheless meets the spirit and intent of CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(Consideration and Discussion of Alternatives to the Proposed Project) by describing a reasonable range ofalternatives to the project. As stated in Section 15126.6(a) an EIR need not consider every conceivablealternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives thatwill foster informed decisionmaking and public participation. There is no ironclad rule governing thenature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.

For further discussion concerning the adequacy of the DEIR’s alternatives analysis, the reader is referred toTopical Response 5.


The closure of Gorham with development to the maximum permitted under current zoning alternativepresents and quantifies what conditions could exist with the most intense use (i.e. the worst case scenario)under current zoning if Gorham was closed. This case must be examined because the closure of Gorhamwould allow this size development by right at any time the developer should choose to build it or add ontoan existing project.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

Current zoning is C1.5-1VL which equates to an FAR of 1.5 and a three stories, 45 feet height limit.Therefore the maximum commercial square footage permitted would be approximately 62,727 square feetdue to the closure of Gorham

0.66 acres + 0.3 acres from closure of Gorham = 0.96 acres = approximately41,818 sq. ft. (see DEIR page IV.A-9 for figures used)41,818 sq. ft. X 1.5 = approximately 62,727 sq. ft.

RESPONSE:

The commenter is not correct that the closure of Gorham would allow this size development by right atany time the developer should choose to build it or add onto an existing project. First, the commenter hasfailed to consider the required dedications for street improvements and open space. In fact, the projectsite has a net area of 36,911 square feet. At an FAR of 1.5, the project site can support 55,366.5 squarefeet, not 62,727 as contended by the commenter. Second, the conditions of the Conditional Use Permitwill restrict the size of development to that which approved with the CUP. To develop additional areabeyond that permitted by the CUP would require a new application, new environmental review, andadditional public hearings.


The closure of Gorham would by right allow future commercial development at the site to be 62,727 sq.ft. as compared to 42,900 square feet which is permitted without the closure of Gorham. This represents again of 19,827 sq. ft. of commercial development by right if Gorham is closed. This is a more thansignificant environmental impact resulting from the closure of Gorham. It is a 46.2% increase incommercial square footage. This is a potential outcome from the closure of Gorham and must be one ofthe alternatives that is thoroughly analyzed and understood.

The proposed project at 54,700 square feet exceed what would be allowed for the existing area withoutthe closure of Gorham which equals 42,900 sq. ft. This is an intensification of the planned land use forthis area by 11,800 sq. ft. or by 27.5%. If 54,700 square feet of commercial development was permittedfor the existing area of 28,600 square feet (no closure of Gorham) the FAR would be 1.913. This clearlyexceeds the 1.5 FAR allowed under the current zoning. The 54,700 square feet of commercialdevelopment would not be permitted if Gorham was left open for traffic.

Therefore the vacation of Gorham clearly intensifies the commercial development planned for this corner.This increase in intensity of land use has a domino effect which incrementally intensifies the demands onall of the other environmental factors: land use, geology, drainages, air quality, transportation/circulation,


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

biological resources, hazardous materials, noise, police and fire protection. This discretionaryintensification of land use due to the closure of Gorham Avenue represents a significant environmentalimpact compared to the existing use and the maximum development permitted without the closure ofGorham.

RESPONSE:

The project is subject to a Conditional Use Permit, which will restrict the size of the proposeddevelopment to that specified in the CUP application (i.e., 54,700 square feet, not 62,727 square feet).The applicant could not, by right, increase the size of the project beyond that specified in the CUP. If,however, the applicant should wish to increase the size of the project at some point in the future, the Cityof Los Angeles would require a new project application and an independent environmental review.

The commenter is correct that the vacation of Gorham Avenue would increase the potential buildablespace of the project site. However, the increase of potential buildable space, per se, is not a significantimpact under CEQA. The impact is the physical effect of that additional space on the environment. Thecommenter correctly indicates that because of the additional buildable area, the project wouldincrementally intensify the demands on all of the other environmental factors. The DEIR addresses eachof these concerns -- land use (Section IV.A), geology (Section IV.C), drainages (Section IV.D), airquality (Section IV.E), transportation/circulation (Section IV.F), biological resources (Section IV.G),hazardous materials (Section IV.H), noise (Section IV.I), police and fire protection (Section IV.J) – andconcludes that, with the exception of construction-related noise impacts, all the project’s effects(including the incremental effect from the additional Gorham Avenue buildable space) are either less thansignificant, or can be mitigated to less than significant levels.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) make it clear that that the EIR should include a range of reasonablealternatives to the project that “…would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project butwould avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project….” Since the project hasno significant effects to be reduced, other than construction-related noise, there is no requirement toassess a smaller project such as the one suggested by the commenter.

With respect to land use intensity, the inclusion of the potential buildable space made available from thevacation of Gorham Avenue does not increase the intensity of land use at the site, it increases the size ofthe site. The maximum permitted intensity of land use for the project site remains unchanged at a FAR of1.5:1. The project has a FAR of 1.48:1 , which is within the range of land use intensity permitted on theproject site under L.A.M.C. Section 12.21.1A1.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


The DEIR does not meet CEQA Guidelines 15128.6 - Consideration and Discussion of Alternatives to theProposed Project:

(c) "Selection of a range of reasonable alternatives. The range of potential alternatives to the proposedproject shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project andcould avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly describethe rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternativesthat were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process andbriefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Additional information explainingthe choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Among the factors that may beused to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are:(i) failure to meet most of thebasic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts."

(d) “Evaluation of alternatives. The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative toallow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. A matrix displayingthe major characteristics and significant environmental effects of each alternative may be used tosummarize the comparison.”

C. The range of alternatives must include the no closure of Gorham with development to the maximumpermitted (42,900 sf.), since this alternative can more than feasibly accomplish all of the basic objectivesof the project and avoids or substantially reduces all of the environmental effects from the proposedproject. This alternative offers a substantial opportunity to achieve the developer’s goals yet significantlyreduces the negative impacts from the much larger proposed project which requires significantdiscretionary approvals including the closure of a functioning street. This alternative would substantiallyachieve the objectives of:

� developing an integrated development, with high quality design features, which provides avariety of goods and services to residents and visitors to Brentwood.

� providing public plazas and other pedestrian oriented gathering places for residents andvisitors to Brentwood.

� supporting the policies and goals of the Brentwood Specific Plan that encourages pedestrianactivity to access the land uses located along San Vicente Boulevard.

� providing secure on-site subterranean parking sufficient to serve the project and relatedpatronage.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Responses to Comments KRISILOFFX-5 through KRISILOFFX-8.


C. If Gorham is closed in order to combine the parcels of land bisected by Gorham Avenue inorder to build a contiguous project, an additional alternative should be examined whichcombines the parcel’s but limits them to the size of area currently owned (0.68 acres =approx. 28,600 sq. ft.) with development limited to an 1.5 FAR of 42,900 sq. ft. A possiblescenario is to place the 0.66 acres at the northern end of the area and return to the communitythe 0.3 acres the developer gains by closing Gorham. The 0.3 acres would be at the southerlyportion of the area and would be used for traffic improvements (including dedicated turnlanes) and dedicated public open and green space (such as a mini or pocket park).

RESPONSE:

Alternatives to the proposed project are discussed in the DEIR at pages VI-1 through VI-20. A total offive alternatives are examined, including an alternative that discusses development of the project sitewithout the closure of Gorham Avenue. While the specific configuration suggested by the commenter hasnot been examined, the DEIR nevertheless meets the spirit and intent of CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(Consideration and Discussion of Alternatives to the Proposed Project) by describing a reasonable range ofalternatives to the project. As stated in Section 15126.6(a) an EIR need not consider every conceivablealternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives thatwill foster informed decisionmaking and public participation. There is no ironclad rule governing thenature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.

For further discussion concerning the adequacy of the DEIR’s alternatives analysis, the reader is referredto Topical Response 5.


E. The EIR does not describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed nor for anyalternatives that were rejected, and the EIR does not include sufficient information to allow meaningfulevaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. Therefore additional alternatives andinformation must be analyzed in order to identify a meaningful, environmentally superior alternative.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The rationale for selecting the alternatives is provided in the DEIR on pages VI-1 and VI-2. The rationalefor rejection is provided in the discussion of each alternative under the subsections entitled “Relationshipof the Alternative to the Project Objectives” and “Impact Summary.”

It is not clear what the commenter means by “…EIR does not include sufficient information…” If this isa reference to the suggestion that additional alternatives should be included in the DEIR, then the reader isreferred to KRISILOFFX-5 through KRISILOFFX-9. However, if this is a general comment withoutspecific reference, then no further response is required.

The DEIR identifies the Environmentally Superior Alternative on page VI-20.


II. The plan and policy consistency analysis is inaccurate and misleading. This project is not fullyconsistent with the Brentwood Palisades District Plan, Brentwood-Pacific Palisades Community Plan, SanVicente Scenic Corridor Specific Plan or the City of Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code. This projectwill result in significant land use impacts which are not thoroughly identified discussed or mitigated.

“Threshold of Significance. For the purposes of this evaluation, and in accordance with the Draft L.A.CEQA Thresholds Guide (May, 1998), a project will result in a significant land use impact if it either: 1)conflicts with adopted goals and policies of the general plan or community plan for the project area; 2)disrupts or divides the physical arrangement of the established community; or 3) has the potential for landuse conflicts with the community.” (DEIR, page IV.A10)

A. The vacation of Gorham Avenue “disrupts the physical arrangement of the established community.”Gorham Avenue has historically been a part of the physical arrangement of this community andenvironmentally represents more than a street for the movement of cars. There has been an outcry ofopposition from the citizens of Brentwood to the vacation of Gorham. On November 6, 2000, theBrentwood Community Council held at which the developer made a presentation to approximately 100plus people. The vast majority of the public comments were opposed to the closure of Gorham Avenue,stressing the importance of Gorham Avenue and the existing arrangement of the commercial property anddevelopments. The vacation of Gorham represents a significant disruption to the physical arrangement ofthe established community.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The vacation of Gorham Avenue does not “disrupt the physical arrangement of the establishedcommunity” as that phrase is intended in the Draft L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide cited by the commenter.The mere change in an existing physical condition does not, in itself, constitute a disruption in thephysical arrangement of the established community; if it did, every project would result in a significantland use impact. Nor does the existence of some public opposition constitute a disruption in the physicalarrangement of the community. Rather, such a disruption exists only if the project substantially andadversely alters the physical arrangement of the community, such as by construction of a new road orinfrastructure, or the demolition of housing. The vacating of a small portion of a street between twoexisting commercial structures and the replacement with a unified commercial structure, coupled with theextensive traffic improvements proposed as mitigation for this project, merely alters the arrangement ofthe particular parcels at issue. It does not constitute, or cause, a substantial change in the physicalarrangement of the surrounding parcels, whether commercial or residential.


B. The vacation of Gorham Avenue is not consistent with the purposes of the San Vicente ScenicCorridor Specific Plan.

San Vicente Scenic Corridor Specific Plan, Ordinance No. 153,639, Summary of Provisions (page 1-1,published by the City of Los Angeles, Dept. of City Planning Central Maps and Publications) Purposes:"The purposes of the Specific Plan are to maintain neighborhood retail and personal service uses atground floor level; to promote pedestrian scale and pedestrian amenities; and to preserve and enhance theambiance of San Vicente Boulevard.”

The proposed project intensifies the commercial development beyond what is currently planned andreduces pedestrian scale and pedestrian friendliness. Gorham street currently breaks up the intensity ofland use by buffering this area from continuous, back-to-back, side-to-side commercial development. Itoffers an escape from the busier, four lane San Vicente Blvd. scenic highway traffic, and also offers asmall side street shopping experience for the consumer and pedestrian. The existing conditions withoutthe closure of Gorham may offer more lineal feet of perimeter public sidewalk for pedestrian enjoymentthan the proposed project with the closure of Gorham. The existing conditions without the vacation ofGorham could be viewed as being more pedestrian friendly because the commercial area is separatedfrom busier San Vicente Blvd. and has the potential to be developed to enhance this feature to be evenmore pedestrian friendly than the proposed project.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The comment evidences a debate about how best to accomplish the Specific Plan’s objective to maintainneighborhood ambiance and pedestrian scale and amenities. The commenter believes existing conditionsare more pedestrian friendly because of more lineal feet of public sidewalk and buffering of part of theproject site from San Vicente Blvd. However, the proposed project would also promote a pedestrianenvironment by eliminating traffic flows through Gorham Ave., and by introducing new pedestrianamenities at street level, such as shops, restaurants, and a public plaza. Neither the commenter’s proposalnor the proposed project are inconsistent with the Specific Plan’s objective; rather, they are simply twomeans to accomplish the same end.


C. The removal of Gorham Avenue as a functioning street is not consistent with the Brentwood-PacificPalisades Community Plan nor with current zoning. Neither the community plan nor current zoningdesignates Gorham Avenue for commercial land use. Replacing Gorham with commercial developmentintensifies the use of the land beyond what it is currently zoned and designated for and is inconsistentwith the land use plans, and represents a significant negative environmental impact.

Gorham is an existing, functioning street, which carries over 6,000 vehicles every day, and is not slatedfor closure due to transportation reasons. Vacating Gorham removes a viable street from the functioningtraffic flow and intensifies commercial land use. It is detrimental to the existing needs of the communityand causes a significant negative environmental impact.

RESPONSE:

Gorham Avenue is not shown on the General Plan's map of streets in the Streets and Highways Element.Accordingly, Gorham Avenue is not required to be maintained by the Community Plan or General Plan.Furthermore, the intersection of Gorham Avenue and Barrington Avenue has experienced numerousaccidents, at least partially due to heavy traffic and poor line-of-sight distances (see Section V. Correctionsand Additions, for a listing accident reports for this intersection from 1996 through 2000). As discussed inTopical Response 8, an improvement of operations is forecasted at Barrington Avenue and GorhamAvenue due to the conversion of the intersection from the existing four-leg configuration to a three-legintersection. The removal of the westerly Gorham Avenue leg reduces the number of conflictingmovements at the intersection, thereby improving overall traffic flow both on Barrington Avenue andGorham Avenue.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

Neither the community plan nor current zoning gives a land use designation to any street. However, asdiscussed in Topical Response 4, Gorham Avenue is an easement, and once the easement is vacated theownership of the land on which Gorham Avenue is now located would automatically revert back to theowners of certain of the subdivided parcels within the tract. The owners who receive this reversionaryinterest depend upon the intent of the original owner of the tract, as indicated by research of titledocuments. However, the presumption under state law is that the owner of land bounded by a street ownsto the center of the street (See Cal. Civ. Code § 831), and title research generally confirms that this wasthe subdivider’s intent. Because the ownership to the center line is expected to revert to the adjoining parcel,the FAR standards for such lots would apply to the vacated area. That is, the land north and south of thecenter line of Gorham Avenue would be eligible for up to a 1.5 FAR. Similarly, the land north and south ofthe center line of Gorham Avenue would take the C1.5-IVL zone designation of the adjoining parcels.

Lastly, the use of vacated Gorham Avenue as part of the project site does not increase the intensity of the use.Rather it increases the size of the project area. The intensity of use remains unchanged at a FAR of 1.5:1.


D. The proposed project is not consistent with the Mini-Shopping Centers and Commercial CornerDevelopment regulations of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (L.A.M.C.) sec. 12.22 A (23). The DEIR isdefective in that it does not adequately recognize or address the intent of the Commercial Corner statute.

L.A.M.C. section 12.22A(23) specifies, in relevant part, that a commercial project on corner lots acrossthe street or an alley from residentially zoned land (a “Commercial Corner Development”) must obtain aCUP under L.A.M.C. 12.24C56 if building height exceeds 40 feet, if there is tandem parking, if newutility lines servicing the project are not placed underground or if there is a use not otherwise subject toconditional use approval which operates between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. The proposed project is48 ft. high, includes tandem parking and above ground utility lines, thus L.A.M.C. section 12.24C56applies.

L.A.M.C. 12-24C56 gives jurisdiction to a Zoning Administrator to grant a CUP to a Commercial CornerDevelopment, using the provisions of L.A.M.C. section 12.22A(23) “as establishing minimum standardsfor approval. Provided, however that NO BUILDING OR STRUCTURE SHALL EXCEED AMAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 40 FEET.” (emphasis added) This limit is undoubtedly intended to protectadjoining residential zones from being overpowered by huge structures (e.g., as happened along Wilshirein Westwood) and establish a transition zone from commercial to (less intense) residential use.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The zoning provision concerning Commercial Corner Development presently provides for a 40 footheight limit. (L.A.M.C. §§ 12.22A23, 12.24W27.) However, as set forth in the DEIR, the applicantintends to obtain a zone variance to exceed this limit for the proposed structures. As indicated in theanalysis of aesthetics, the development of such structures will not have a significant effect on view shedsor other aesthetic issues, and thus cannot be fairly described as “overpowering” nearby residential uses.(DEIR, pp. IV.L-1 through 25.)


It is doubtful that the findings required by L.A.M.C. 12.24C56 could be made. In addition to the usualfindings, the ZA must find (1) that the Commercial Corner Development use is consistent with the publicwelfare and safety, (2) that access, ingress and egress to the Commercial Corner Development will notconstitute a traffic hazard or cause significant traffic congestion or disruption of vehicular circulation onadjacent streets based on data provided by the City DOT or a licensed traffic engineer; (3) that there is nota detrimental concentration of Commercial Corner Developments in the vicinity of the proposedCommercial Corner Development, and (4) that the Commercial Corner Development is not located in anidentified pedestrian oriented area or zone or, if so, the Commercial Corner Development would not havean adverse impact on the pedestrian oriented area or zone. Note that the San Vicente Scenic CorridorSpecific Plan has as its primary purpose making San Vicente Blvd. a pedestrian oriented area.

RESPONSE:

The findings relevant to this project are actually found in a section of the Municipal Code different fromthat cited by the commenter. (See L.A.M.C. § 12.24W27.) As the DEIR generally evidences, thesefindings can be properly made for this project, which meets relevant codes, properly addresses trafficconcerns, encourages pedestrian activity, and is consistent with the character of the surroundingcommunity.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


E. The Community Plan, Specific Plan Objective and Zoning Consistency Analysis, Table IV.A-1 (pagesIV.A-12 to page IV.A-17) is erroneous. The across the board “consistent” consistency determinationrating is erroneous, overinflated, and lacks adequate analysis and identification of deficiencies.

Brentwood-Pacific Palisades District Plan (BPPDP), Objective 6, (page IV.A 12): “To promoteeconomic well-being and public convenience by allocating and distributing commercial lands for retail,service and office facilities in quantities and patterns based upon the needs of the District and acceptedplanning principles and standards.” The project is inconsistent with this objective because the closure ofGorham Avenue is not a public convenience, and the size and scale of the proposed project exceeds whatthe area is currently zoned for. The hardships resulting from the increased intensity of commercialdevelopment beyond what is allowed without the closure of Gorham is inconsistent with Objective 6.

RESPONSE:

The project can be found to be consistent with BPPDP Objective 6. As discussed in Topical Response 8,the vacation of Gorham Avenue, in combination with the proposed roadway and intersectionimprovements, will promote the public convenience by improving traffic conditions on BarringtonAvenue and at the intersection of Barrington Avenue and San Vicente. The public convenience is alsopromoted by the improvement of pedestrian crossings at the Gorham Avenue/San Vicente Boulevardintersection (see Response to Comment KRISELX-2). Because the project does not create any significantimpacts (other than short-term construction noise), no hardships resulting from the proposed project(including the vacation of Gorham Avenue) are anticipated.


Brentwood-Pacific Palisades Community Plan (BPPCP), Goal 2, (page 1 V.A 13): “A strong andcompetitive commercial sector which best serves the needs of the community effectively while preservingthe commercial and cultural character of the district.” The project is inconsistent with this objectivebecause over development of commercial property at this corner does not best serve the needs of thecommunity nor does it preserve the commercial and cultural character of the districts. The existingcharacter includes a functioning street, low scale commercial development, pedestrian friendliness andpedestrian scale, and land use zoning that does not permit the square footage proposed by this project.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The project can be found to be consistent with BPPCP Goal 2 because it increases competition betweenservice providers and retailers, it increases consumer choices by providing greater variety of services andgoods, and it contributes to the overall economic health of the community by providing an integrateddevelopment with high quality design features. The project best serves the needs of both residents andvisitors to the Brentwood area by providing a mix of goods and services consistent with commercial usespermitted in the Limited Commercial zone (C1.5). Further, as a mixed commercial development, itpreserves the commercial character of the district. While as a pedestrian-oriented development (withplaza and water feature, and new/improved sidewalks) it preserves and enhances pedestrian friendlinessand the cultural character of the district.

The proposed project does not over build the site. LAMC Section 12.21.1A1 restricts the permittedintensity of development on the project site to a FAR of 1.5:1; the proposed project has a FAR of 1.48:1(inclusive of the area to be incorporated with the vacation of Gorham Avenue). As a pedestrian orientedcommercial development, the project will serves both residents and visitors to the Brentwood area.


BPPCP, Goal 2-1.1, (page IV.A-13): “New commercial uses shall be located in existing establishedcommercial areas or existing shopping centers.” The project is inconsistent with this objective becauseGorham Avenue is a street, it is not an existing established commercial area. The vacation of Gorhamrepresents the expansion of commercial area.

RESPONSE:

The proposed project can be found to be consistent with BPPCP Goal 2-1.1 because the project site islocated in an established commercial area (designated Community Commercial by the Brentwood-PacificPalisades Community Plan). As discussed in Topical Response 4, Gorham Avenue is an easement, and theunderlying fee interest in Gorham Avenue is held by those property owners adjacent to it. In accordance withstate law, in the event of its vacation, the adjacent fee would be freed from the public easement, which, in thiscase, is owned by the applicant for the project. Because the underlying fee to the center line belongs to theadjoining parcel, the FAR standards for such lots would apply to the vacated area. That is, the land north andsouth of the center line of Gorham Avenue would be eligible for up to a 1.5 FAR. Similarly, the land northand south of the center line of Gorham Avenue would take the C1.5-IVL zone designation of the adjoiningparcels.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


BPPCP, Policy 2.1.3, (page IV.A-14): “Require that projects be designed and developed to achieve ahigh level of quality, distinctive character, and compatibility with existing uses and development.” Theproject is inconsistent with this objective because the over developing of commercial property at thiscorner due to the closure of Gorham is not compatible with existing uses and development. The existinguse includes a functioning street. The environmental hardships from increased intensity of commercialdevelopment beyond that allowed without the closure of Gorham is incompatible with the existingadjacent and surrounding residential developments.

RESPONSE:

The project can be found to be consistent with BPPCP Policy 2.1.3 because it will be designed anddeveloped to achieve a high level of quality and distinctive character. Furthermore, the project will becompatible with existing uses and development. As discussed in the DEIR on page IV.A-18, the projectsite is already occupied with the same type of facilities that are proposed with the project. With theincorporation of sensitive design features, the potential for conflict between the proposed project and theexisting mix of commercial and residential uses in the area will be similar to current levels of conflict ormost likely reduced. For example, the proposed project is designed to minimize commercial activity onthe frontages facing residential areas while maintaining and enhancing the pedestrian linkages.

Nevertheless, development of the proposed project is anticipated to increase activity levels in the area.However, high intensity uses are consistent with the City recognition of this site as a commercial“community center.” With respect to the “over developing” of the subject property, the Reader is referredto Response to Comment KRISILOFFX-17. With respect to the compatibility of the proposed vacationof Gorham Avenue and “environmental hardships”, the Reader is referred to Response to CommentKRISILOFFX-16.


Furthermore, the major entrance and exit driveway across public sidewalk on San Vicente Blvd. is notpedestrian friendly. It is located directly adjacent to another driveway (Whole Foods Market). Theexpanse of these adjacent driveways for the large numbers of cars entering and exiting both sets ofdriveways is dangerous and severely effects the pedestrian experience. This represents a significantenvironmental impact.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:


The LADOT letter notes their recommendation that the project driveway on San Vicente Boulevard be 30feet in width, which is the standard width of a commercial driveway. By comparison, pedestrians alongthe north side of San Vicente Boulevard in the area of the proposed project driveway must currently crossthe north leg of Gorham Avenue, which due to the skewed angle of the intersection, requires a crossingthat is approximately 110 feet. Thus, with the development of the project and the closure of the north legof Gorham Avenue, pedestrian movements will be improved by reducing the crossing distance from 110feet to 30 feet.

The proposed driveway location will not be combined with the existing driveway serving the WholeFoods market as suggested by the commenter. Appropriate separation will be provided between the twodriveways as determined by LADOT in their final review and approval of the site access scheme so as toreduce potential vehicle conflicts between the two driveways. The reader is also referred to Response toComment BEITLERX-12.


BPPCP, Objective 2-2, (page IV.A-14): “Allow for the development of automobile-related uses in specificcommercial designations along major arterials.” The project is inconsistent with this objective because itreduces and actually removes the development of an automobile related use by vacating Gorham Avenue.

RESPONSE:

The project can be found to be consistent with BPPCO Objective 2-2 because it improves trafficcirculation on Barrington Avenue, San Vicente Boulevard, and the remaining portions of GorhamAvenue. For further discussion of the traffic improvements provided by the proposed project, the readeris referred to Topical Response 8.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


BPPCP, Policy 2-2.1, (page IV.A-14): “Prohibit the development of new automobile - related uses inpedestrian oriented areas.” The project is inconsistent with this objective because the project willintensify automobile related uses in an area designated as pedestrian oriented by the San Vicente ScenicCorridor Specific Plan.

RESPONSE:

The project can be found to be consistent with BPPCO Policy 2-2.1 because it is not an automobile-related use, such as service stations and auto repair shops. The mere fact that a use attracts automobilesdoes not make it an “automobile-related use”. Since the greater Los Angeles area is almost entirelyautomobile dependent for intra-urban transportation, virtually all commercial land uses attractautomobiles; therefore, the commenter’s proposed interpretation of the Community Plan implies thatvirtually no commercial development on the site would be acceptable.


BPPCP, Policy 2-3.1, (page 1 V.A -1 5): "Pedestrian oriented areas are to be identified and preserved.”The project is inconsistent with this objective because it destroys Gorham Avenue with its adjacent treelined sidewalks which are public and absolutely 100% pedestrian oriented. Covering Gorham Avenuewith three stories of commercial development removes public visual open space along public sidewalkswhich comprise a pedestrian oriented area. To preserve this public visual open space, a comparable publicopen space must be included in the project.

RESPONSE:

The project site is located within the pedestrian oriented area along San Vicente between MontanaAvenue and Brigham Avenue, as identified by the Brentwood-Pacific Palisades Community Plan. Theproject can be found to be consistent with BPPCP Policy 2-3.1 because it improves pedestrian conditionsin the area. Significantly, it shortens the north/south crosswalk at the San Vicente Boulevard/GorhamAvenue intersection from its current 250 foot length to just over 100 feet (see Response to CommentKRISELX-2). On-site, pedestrian access will be maintained and enhanced via a series of walkways andterraces internal to the project site as well as along sidewalks on the perimeter of the project site adjacentto Barrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. Internally, a pedestrian shortcut from BarringtonAvenue to San Vicente Boulevard crosses the second floor terrace, travels down the outdoorescalator/stair system, and ends at the public court. To create that public gathering space, the cornerbuilding is placed well back from the sidewalk. This area is enlivened with a water feature that begins in


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

the project’s landscaped area along Barrington Avenue and cascades down to the corner where it flowsinto a quiet pool with a wide sitting ledge.

The connection of the areas of the project site currently located north and south of Gorham Avenue willresult in the construction of approximately 1,200 linear feet of new sidewalk along San VicenteBoulevard and Barrington Avenue and would provide for continuity of pedestrian flow along this street.Additionally, street frontages along San Vicente Boulevard and Barrington Avenue will be planted withstreet trees. Landscaping will be used to fill in unpaved, non-building areas along the project’s west andeast sides. Extensive landscaping within the building complex and Plaza areas will be simplistic andfocused on hardscape features with plant material accents. Small planters and benches may also beincorporated. Overall, the project will provide over five times the city code-required landscaping.


BPPCP, Policy 2-3.2, (page IV.A-15): “New development should add to and enhance the existingpedestrian street activity.” The project is inconsistent with this objective because the intensification ofcommercial use at this corner destroys the existing activity which includes a functioning street, a lowscale commercial development which preserves pedestrian friendliness and pedestrian scale, and land usezoning that does not permit the square footage proposed by this project.

Furthermore as mentioned above, the major entrance and exit driveway across public sidewalk on SanVicente Blvd. does enhance the existing pedestrian street activity. The driveway location directly adjacentto the Whole Foods Market driveway to serve the large volume of care entering and exiting is dangerousand severely effects the pedestrian experience. This represents a significant environmental impact.

RESPONSE:

The project can be found to be consistent with BPPCP Policy 2-3.2 (see Response to CommentKRISILOFFX-23). With respect to existing uses, the reader is referred to Response to CommentKRISILOFFX-19. With respect to “land use zoning”, the reader is referred to Responses to CommentsKRISILOFFX-17 and KRISILOFFX-18.

The proposed driveway location near the Whole Foods Market driveway does not create a significantimpact (see Response to Comment KRISILOFFX-20). As discussed in Response to CommentBEITLERX-12, under the proposed project, vehicular access for the Whole Foods market, located


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

immediately west of the project site on the north side of San Vicente Boulevard, would be enhanced ascompared to current conditions.

The Whole Foods market currently has two driveways onto San Vicente Boulevard west of the projectsite. Motorists approaching the market from westbound San Vicente Boulevard turn right into thedriveways while eastbound San Vicente Boulevard motorists are required to travel past the driveways andmake a u-turn at the Gorham Avenue intersection. All motorists exiting the market onto San VicenteBoulevard must turn right due to the raised median. Exiting motorists with destinations on eastbound SanVicente Boulevard must make a u-turn at the Montana Avenue intersection.

The easterly Whole Foods market driveway is immediately adjacent to the northwest corner of theGorham Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard intersection. Thus, any queuing from the easterly Whole Foodsmarket driveway immediately affects operations at the adjacent Gorham Avenue/San Vicente Boulevardintersection.

With the project access configuration and implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in theDEIR, access to the Whole Foods market will improve. Inbound motorists from westbound San VicenteBoulevard would still turn right. While eastbound San Vicente Boulevard motorists (as well asnorthbound Gorham Avenue motorists) will have access to a new turn pocket to complete the u-turns intothe market driveways. For exiting movements, motorists will have the option to use the new turn pocketprovided at the Gorham Avenue intersection for purposes of completing u-turns to eastbound San VicenteBoulevard (i.e., rather than having to travel west to the Montana Avenue intersection prior to making a u-turn). In summary, the project access scheme and associated traffic mitigation measures described in theDEIR will improve, and not degrade access to the adjacent Whole Foods market.


BPPCP, Policy 2-3.3, (page IV.A-15): “Ensure that commercial projects achieve harmony with the bestof existing development.” The project is inconsistent with this objective because it is not ensuring that theproject achieves harmony with the best existing developments. The best existing developments aregenerally those which comply with current zoning, and balance the intensity and scale of commercialdevelopment to enhance the pedestrian scale, pedestrian friendliness and pedestrian orientation mandatedby the San Vicente Specific Corridor Specific Plan. This project vacates Gorham Avenue (which is apublic easement) for the purpose of intensifying commercial development, yet does not sufficiently returna comparable quantity of purely public benefits (ones not controlled by the developer) for the pedestrian’sbenefit.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The project can be found to be consistent BPPCP, Policy 2-3.3, because it is consistent with existingzoning and the Brentwood – Pacific Palisades Community Plan land use designation for the project site.Additionally, the proposed project will be designed to ensure harmony with existing development. Withrespect to the project’s compatibility with the pedestrian-oriented character of district, the reader isreferred to Response to Comment KRISILOFFX-23.

There is no requirement in the State of California Public Streets, Highways and Service EasementsVacation Law (Cal. Sts. & High. Code §§ 8300 et. seq.) that a developer return “a comparable quantity ofpurely public benefits (ones not controlled by the developer) for the pedestrian’s benefit” in exchange forthe approval of a street vacation.


BPPCP, Objective 24, (page IV.A-16): ‘To enhance the appearance of commercial districts consistentwith the character and quality of the surrounding neighborhoods.” For all the reasons stated above, theproject is inconsistent with this objective. The hardships and annoyances from the project will deterioratethe character and quality of the surrounding neighborhood.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Responses to Comments KRISILOFFX-16 through KRISILOFFX-25.


Some of the existing concerns, hardships and annoyances found in letters (in the Appendix) to the cityfrom nearby condo and apartment house residents on Gorham and Barrington include:

� THERE ARE ALREADY TWO DOZEN RESTAURANTS WITH BEER AND WINElicenses in the immediate four-block area.

� A number of those were granted permits without requiring adequate parking or haveinadequate parking as a result of being grandfathered, e.g., Toscana, Berty's, Coffee Bean...

� Shoppers and diners park in residential streets rather than pay valet or parking attendant.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

� Valet attendants park all over residential areas.

� Restaurant go-ers hang around after restaurants close, talking loudly in street, playing carstereo, leaving litter on lawns/bushes.

� Older apartment buildings were constructed with only one parking space per unit. Nowtenants have 2-3 cars per unit.

� It is already very difficult for tenants coming home from work to find street parking.

RESPONSE:

The commenter has enumerated existing problems not caused by the proposed project, but has notaddressed the sufficiency of the DEIR. While no further response is necessary, the following should benoted: 1) The project is not being “grandfathered” and will provide adequate parking as determined bythe Los Angeles Municipal Code. 2) The project will most likely provide a validation system along withits valet service. 3) Valet will be required to park cars within the on-site subterranean parking structureand will be prohibited from parking vehicles on public streets.


BPPCP, Policy 2-4.2, (page IV.A-17): “Preserve community character, scale and architecture diversity.”The project is inconsistent with this objective because the proposed vacation of Gorham Avenueintensifies the of [sic] scale of development beyond that currently allowed. The intensified scale does notpreserve community character and is not pedestrian friendly. The exit and entrance driveways bring all ofthe automobile traffic across the public sidewalk. The height variances, side yard and setback variances,and hours of operation variances sought by the developer do not preserve community character or scale.

RESPONSE:

The project can be found to be consistent with BPPCP Policy 2-4.2 because it is consistent with existingzoning and the Community Plan land use designation for the project site. Further, the project applicanthas indicated its intention to provide a project that exhibits architectural diversity. With respect to projectscale, pedestrian orientation, and driveway entrances, the reader is referred to KRISILOFFX-16 throughKRISILOFFX-25. Lastly, it should be noted that in urbanized areas it is not uncommon for driveways tocross sidewalks.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


The stated hours of operation require a variance for operation from 6 a.m. to 12:30 a.m. hours. The DEIRshould analyze these hours of operation for consistency with the community character. What other placeson the boulevard operate under these hours? Is this a community standard to be open from 6 a.m. to 12:30a.m.? What are the environmental impacts to the neighboring residents?

RESPONSE:

The DEIR assesses the impacts from the proposed hours of operation in Section IV.I, Noise (see pagesIV.I-1 through IV.I-14). As indicated on page IV.I-14, project-related operational noise impacts would beless than significant. The reader is also referred to Response to Comment WRIGHTX-22. It should benoted that the Starbucks Coffee presently located on the site opens at 5:30 a.m. on weekdays andSaturdays, and 6:00 a.m. on Sundays.


Furthermore, the proposed modification of San Vicente Boulevard medians would impact the existingmedians and most likely harm existing Coral Trees including the removal of Coral Trees. This action doesnot preserve one of the most highly regarded characteristics of the community -- the landscaped mediansand the Coral Trees which are both under the protection of the SVSCSP (see below).

RESPONSE:

No trees will be removed from the median on San Vicente Boulevard. It is proposed that two coral treesbe added. There will be a net decrease in the area of the raised median of approximately 2,000 squarefeet.


BPPCP, Policy 2-4.3, (page IV.A-17): “Improve safety and aesthetics of parking areas in commercialareas.” The project is inconsistent with this objective because it is not safe nor pedestrian friendly tolocate a driveway for over 4,000 vehicle trips a day across the public sidewalk. The danger and significantdetrimental impact to pedestrians is compounded by the fact that this driveway is located immediatelynext to a driveway already existing and used for the exit and entrance of supermarket customers.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Responses to Comments KRISILOFFX-20 and KRISILOFFX-24.


The San Vicente Scenic Corridor Specific Plan is one of the most important planning tools for theBrentwood Community and is a part of the Brentwood-Pacific Palisades District Plan, which is part of theGeneral Plan of the City of Los Angeles. A thorough analysis for consistency, environmental impacts andmitigation must be addressed. Some of the issues to be addressed are:

San Vicente Scenic Corridor Specific Plan (SVSCSP): Consistency determination “to be determined.”The project is woefully inconsistent with this objective because it does not even address the SVSCSP.The DEIR is absolutely deficient in addressing the consistency with the SVSCSP. The discretionaryintensification of land use due to the closure of Gorham Avenue is not consistent with the San VicenteScenic Corridor Specific Plan. It is detrimental to the existing needs of the community. This represents asignificant environmental impact.

RESPONSE:

The Specific Plan is indeed an important planning tool, as the commenter notes. However, thecommenter is incorrect in stating that the DEIR does not address the Specific Plan. As the commenterstates, the Land Use section of the DEIR contains a table that indicates that the project will conform withdetailed standards concerning matters such as ground floor frontage uses, signage, landscaping, setbacks,open space areas, and sidewalks, and that conformance with these standard will be determined upon siteplan review. (DEIR, p. IV.A-17.) This approach is proper where, as here, the standards are sufficientlydetailed as to not be susceptible to the more general level of detail contained in an EIR.

Moreover, notwithstanding this table, the Specific Plan objectives, and consistency with these objectives,are in fact discussed in other sections of the DEIR. First, the objectives are discussed in the Land Usesection. (DEIR, p. IV.A-8.) Further, because the vast majority of the objectives and resulting standardsinvolve aesthetics, there is substantial additional discussion in the Aesthetics section. (DEIR, pp. IV.L-13, 18, 19.)

The commenter also says the intensification of land use is inconsistent with the Specific Plan, anddetrimental to the needs of the community. There is no provision of the Specific Plan precludingintensification of use, but merely a limitation of floor-area ratio to 1.5, a standard with which the projectcomplies. Moreover, the intensification of use on these parcels is consistent with the existing scale of the


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

neighborhood. Finally, the project serves the needs of the community by providing pedestrian amenities,goods and services, and adequate parking.


The alteration of the median islands and removal of Coral Trees require a public hearing processaccording to the SVSCSP (see below). This is not identified in the list of discretionary actions requested(page IV.A-9).

RESPONSE:

Section 7.B. of the SVSCSP states that “…no major alteration of the median strip shall occur without apublic hearing, to be held by the Board of Public Works…” The DEIR lists the discretionary actionsknown to be required of the project at the time the Notice of Preparation was prepared. At the bottom ofpage III-1 the DEIR notes the following:

In addition, certain other discretionary approvals as the city or other public agency may findappropriate may be required in order to execute and implement the project, including but notlimited to, Sewer Connection Permit, Department of Public Works permits for excavation,shoring and barricades in public ways and installation of public improvements…

The alternation of the San Vicente median strip is an installation of a public improvement that requires aDepartment of Public Works permit. It should also be noted that no trees will be removed from themedian on San Vicente Boulevard. Rather, it is proposed that two coral trees be added.


San Vicente Scenic Corridor Specific Plan, Ordinance No. 153,639, (page 4-1, published by the City ofLos Angeles, Dept. of City Planning Central Maps and Publications) - Section 1-Purposes: "...It is thepurpose of these design and development standards to provide appropriate measures for maintaining theexisting ambience of San Vicente Boulevard, preserving and enhancing the inherent beauty and value ofits landscaped median strip,..."

Section 7 A- Landscaping (pages 4.5 to 4-6): “The existing Coral Trees which line the median strip ofSan Vicente Boulevard shall be preserved and maintained with proper irrigation and pruning. In the event


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

that disease or disaster necessitate the removal of a Coral Tree, it shall be replaced by the City of LosAngeles…”

Section 7 B.- Landscaping (page 4-6): "Inasmuch as it is the purpose of this Plan to preserve, inperpetuity, the landscaped median strip of San Vicente Boulevard, no major alteration of the median stripshall occur without a public hearing, to be held by the Board of Public Works,..."

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Response to Comment KRISILOFFX-33.


The DEIR lacks adequate information and an adequate analysis for consistency with the SVSCSPrequirement of Open Space Areas. Adequate and conforming “Open Space Area” is a major componentof the SVSCSP.

The DEIR mentions 4,800 sf on the first and second levels (page I-2) yet the San Vicente Scenic CorridorSpecific Plan, Section 8, requires minimum open space at sidewalk grade equal to 5 times the frontageplus additional open space equal to 15 times the frontage, which open space may be either at sidewalkgrade or above. The frontage is unknown because the DEIR drawings have no scale or dimensionsindicated.

RESPONSE:

The comment expresses confusion between the Open Space as required by the SVSCSP and the publicplaza on the first level that will be provided within said Open Space. The public plaza will beapproximately 2,772 square feet. In addition, the project will provide a total of 10,638 square feet ofpublicly accessible hardscaped and landscaped areas at sidewalk grade and on the second floor, for a totalof 13,400 square feet of publicly accessible open space. The required Open Space at sidewalk grade isapproximately 1,250 square feet (5 times the frontage of approximately 250 feet). The actual Open Spaceat sidewalk grade (limited by Section 8.A. to the first 20 feet from San Vicente), includes a portion of thepublic plaza, and a portion of the surrounding hardscaped/landscaped area, for a total of approximately4,150 square feet (i.e., more than 3 times the required amount). Furthermore, the additional open space ofapproximately 9,250 square feet (consisting of the remainder of the hardscaped and landscaped areas atsidewalk grade, as well as additional open space on the second floor) is also more than 2 times therequired Additional Open Space of 3,750 square feet (15 times 250 feet).


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


Open space used for outdoor restaurant seating should be physically separated from open space used bythe general public. Planters or something similar should be required to demarcate where restaurant useends to make sure restaurants don’t expand by creeping into the public area.

RESPONSE:

The public plaza on the first level will be separated from the surrounding open space by planters to ensureno encroachment by tenants onto the public plaza area. Restaurant seating on the second level terrace willbe separated from the Open Space used by the general public. In any event, such separation is typicallyrequired by the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) as part of its permitting process.


III. The transportation and circulation analysis is inaccurate and misleading. The data is two years old. Amore current analysis using more current data must be performed to accurately identify the environmentalimpact and the appropriate mitigation. This project will result in significant transportation and circulationimpacts which are not thoroughly identified, discussed or mitigated.

RESPONSE:

The analysis of potential project related traffic impacts are described in the DEIR in Section IV.F,Transportation/Circulation and summarized on Table IV.F-11, page IV.F-35 of the DEIR. As shown,prior to consideration of mitigation measures, the project is forecasted to result in significant trafficimpacts at three intersections. The recommended traffic mitigation measures are described in the DEIRon pages IV.F-38 through IV.F-41. Table IV.F-12, page IV.F-40 of the DEIR indicates that withimplementation of the recommended mitigation measures, the traffic impacts of the project are reduced toless than significant levels. The July 26, 2000 LADOT letter also provides a summary of the projecttraffic impacts and recommended mitigation measures (see Comment Letter TAMX). The traffic countshave been reviewed and approved by LADOT for use in the traffic analysis.

The November 1993 LADOT Traffic Study Policies and Procedures manual states that traffic count datathat is up to two years old is acceptable for use in preparing traffic studies. Page IV.F-4 of the DEIRstates that the traffic counts at the study intersections were conducted in late 1998. LADOT issued its


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

letter approving the traffic study in June 2000, a time when the traffic count data was less than two yearsold. Therefore, the traffic count data is appropriate for use based on standards set forth by LADOT.

The traffic study evaluates potential cumulative traffic impacts consistent with the requirements of theCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 15130 of CEQA requires that the lead agency(i.e., The City of Los Angeles) preparing the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the projectevaluate potential cumulative impacts by considering the traffic effects of past, present and probablefuture projects (i.e., the related projects). The traffic study provided in the DEIR complies with theCEQA requirement.


LADOT requires application of the annual traffic growth factor from the time of the traffic counts to theyear of project build-out (estimated at the year 2004). The annual growth rate used in the traffic analysisis intended to forecast annual increases in traffic volumes in the study area based on historical patterns.The selection of the growth rate and traffic study horizon year by LADOT is consistent with themethodology outlined in the Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County, County of LosAngeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority, November, 1997.


A. This BCC Subcommittee incorporates herein by reference the traffic study submitted by BrentwoodHomeowner's Association, dated November 29, 2000, and prepared by Kumar Consulting Services.

RESPONSE:

Responses to the Kumar Consulting traffic study (dated Services November 29, 2000) are provided inResponses to Comments MINASSIANX-2 through MINASSIANX-16.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


B. Additional individual subcommittee member comments regarding transportation and circulation areincluded below.

The traffic study is deficient for these reasons (1) the study by Crain & Associates is dated July 2000 butthe traffic counts were made in late 1998 as stated on page IV. F.4 of the DEIR. In the over 2 years sincethe counts calculated much has happened to change the traffic counts in Brentwood

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Response to Comment KRISILOFFX-37 for a discussion of the traffic analysisprovided in the DEIR. Due to the rather lengthy process required to scope the traffic study with LADOT,conduct the traffic study, submit and revise the traffic study per LADOT comments, and prepare theDEIR, it is common for traffic counts to be several years old by the time of circulation of the DEIR.

The methodology for forecasting future traffic is discussed in IV.F, Transportation/Circulation beginningon page IV.F-10. As discussed in Section II.B, the list of related projects was assembled in accordancewith standards set forth in the State CEQA Guidelines. Data regarding related projects was provided tothe DEIR preparers in March, 1999 by the Los Angeles Department of City Planning, the Los AngelesDepartment of Transportation (LADOT), and the City of Santa Monica. The related projects wereverified based on field observations and were approved for use in the DEIR by the City of Los Angeles.

While not required by State CEQA Guidelines, LADOT requires that DEIR traffic impact evaluations fordevelopment projects also include annual traffic growth factor from the year of the area traffic counts tothe year of the anticipated project build-out. The annual traffic growth factor is used in addition to trafficforecasted from the related projects to forecast future pre-project traffic conditions on the local roadwaynetwork. As stated on page IV.F-10, the traffic growth factor is used to account for increases in trafficresulting from projects not yet proposed or outside the study area. Therefore, any changes in traffic thathave occurred on the local roadway network are adequately accounted for in the DEIR through theforecast of future traffic volumes.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


(2) there is nothing in the DEIR to back up the statement “LADOT allows a 40 reduction to tripgeneration for the project to account for ”pass-by” trips to the project." This is a very high percentage;

RESPONSE:

The 40 percent pass-by trip factor referenced by the commenter is discussed on page IV.F-19 of theDEIR. The pass-by factor applied is based on LADOT policy for preparing project trip generationforecasts, and is consistent with data provided in the Trip Generation manual published by the Institute ofTransportation Engineers.


(3) the vehicle trips noted on Figure IV F-4b at the intersection of Montana and San Vicente do notcalculate with the 162 westbound vehicles on San Vicente and needs to be recalculated as necessary;

RESPONSE:

As stated in the DEIR (page IV.F-19), the project trip assignments at the three intersections adjacent tothe site (Barrington Avenue/Gorham Avenue, Barrington Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard and GorhamAvenue/San Vicente Boulevard) are based on the unadjusted project trip generation forecast (i.e., no pass-by trip factor applied). At non-adjacent study intersections (i.e., at the Montana Avenue/San VicenteBoulevard intersection referenced by the commenter), the trip assignments reflect the adjusted tripgeneration forecast.

Thus, for example, Figure IV.F-3, page IV.F-21 of the DEIR shows 70% (calculated by summing theturning movements) of the outbound project trips traveling westbound on San Vicente Boulevard at theMontana Avenue intersection. Table IV.F-9, page IV.F-20 of the DEIR, indicates that the total adjustedPM peak hour outbound trip generation forecast for the project is 110 trips. By applying the 70%assignment, the total number of project trips expected on the westbound San Vicente Boulevard approachto the Montana Avenue intersection would be 77 PM peak hour trips. Review of Figure IV.F-4breferenced by the commenter confirms that 77 project trips are assigned to this approach (30 u-turns, 5left-turns, 17 through, and 25 right-turns). Therefore, the data provided in the DEIR is correct and doesnot require revision.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


(4) the impact on the local residential streets to the south of San Vicente, e.g., Dorothy, has not been takeninto account;

RESPONSE:

Project related trips are not anticipated to use single family residential streets for access, with theexception of residents who live in the area and choose to patronize the commercial uses at the site afterproject build-out.


(5) the California Department of Transportation requires in its letter dated November 23, 1998, that “Thisanalysis to address year 2015..." and this was not done.

RESPONSE:

See Topical Response 6 for a discussion of the methodology used in the DEIR traffic analysis forforecasting future traffic on the local street system. The future forecasts of traffic on the local streetsystem have been prepared in accordance with the standards set forth in the State CEQA Guidelines. TheCEQA guidelines state that the Lead Agency (i.e., the City of Los Angeles) shall determine theappropriate methodology for preparing such forecasts. The methodology suggested by Caltrans in theirletter responding to the Notice of Preparation is inconsistent with the City of Los Angeles requirements.


Alley north of site: The 2.5 ft widening of the alley (page III-10) is not enough. All deliveries are to bemade in the alley. If trucks enter the alley from Barrington, how do they exit and vice versa? The alleybehind the office building west of Whole Foods Market is very narrow. The alley is also the onlyaccess/exit route for vehicles of tenants in several condo/apt. buildings on Montana.

RESPONSE:

A description of the proposed site access configuration at the project is provided in the DEIR in SectionIII, Project Description and in Section IV.F, Transportation/Circulation. As discussed on page III-10,


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

access for delivery vehicles serving the project is proposed via the alley along the north edge of theproject site. All other vehicles associated with the project will utilize the project driveway located on SanVicente Boulevard west of Barrington Avenue. Therefore, the only trips generated by the project on thealley are expected to be delivery vehicles. Utilization of the alley for access by project service vehicles isappropriate and consistent with the access scheme at other commercial developments in the projectvicinity as noted by the commenter.




Parking: The parking analysis is contradictory and vague.

What is the number of parking spaces provided? In one part of the DEIR it reports 3 levels ofsubterranean parking for 275 vehicles (pages I-2, III-4) and in another part of the DEIR it reports parkingfor 266 vehicles (pages I-7, IVF-37). LAMC requires 5 spaces per 1,000 sf retail or 271 spaces, whereasthe DEIR reports that LAMC requires 4 spaces per 1,000 sf or 217 spaces. (page I-7) The DEIR statesthat 46,213 sf of retail and 8,100 sf of restaurant use could be accommodated in a 266 space garage bycode. (IVF-38)

RESPONSE:

The DEIR incorrectly refers to 266 parking spaces on pages I-6, I-7 and IVF-37. The correct number ofparking spaces currently projected to be contained in the on-site underground parking structure is 275spaces. The text that discusses the 266 spaces was inadvertently carried over from an earlier draft into the


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

final version of the DEIR. The reader is referred to Corrections and Additions Nos. 1 through 4, which areherewith provided to correct any confusion that may have arisen.

The reader is also referred to Topical Response 7 for a discussion of how the 275 projected parkingspaces have been calculated.


Is this going to be tandem parking? The project this developer proposed a few years ago required tandemparking with valets at all times because the garage area could not otherwise provide the number ofparking spaces needed. Now he states. “A valet service and a parking validation system will likely beincorporated into the project” (IVF-37) The parking analysis needs to be clarified and supported withconsistent numbers and clearer calculations.

RESPONSE:

The project’s projections of on-site parking do not include tandem spaces. However, some tandem spacesfor valet parking purposes may be provided in excess of that required by the Los Angeles MunicipalCode. Such spaces are permitted to be provided under the Los Angeles Municipal Code. Therefore, theprovision for tandem parking spaces at the project, if incorporated into the final design and approved bythe Department of Building and Safety, would not result in an adverse impact to parking.


Parking Access: The developer proposes either (1) right-in, right-out only; i.e., eastbound SanVicente/Gorham traffic has to make a U-turn at Barrington and circle back OR (2) allow eastbound SanVicente traffic to make left turns at Gorham into the wall, allow left turns for westbound traffic on SanVicente; and a right-turn only for vehicles exiting the garage (III-9-10, IVF-2425). The first proposal isnot acceptable because it will hopelessly complicate traffic at Barrington and lengthen the timing ofsignals in each direction, meaning more traffic backs up on both San Vicente and Barrington waiting forlights to change.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Response to Comment BEITLERX-5 for a discussion of the formulation of theproject site access scheme. The driveways for many existing commercial developments located along


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

San Vicente Boulevard in Brentwood are provided at mid-block locations in the area of the existing raisedmedian. Therefore, right-turn only movements are permitted at most existing commercial drivewaysalong San Vicente Boulevard. Thus, in lieu of left-turns out of commercial driveways, motorists arerequired to make u-turns at breaks in the median, or a series of right-turns around the block.

The project access, however, is proposed to be located on the north side of San Vicente Boulevard acrossfrom Gorham Avenue, an existing signalized location. The proposed reconfiguration of the raised medianon San Vicente Boulevard at the Gorham Avenue/project driveway intersection, as described in the DEIRon page IV.F-39 allows for left-turns to be completed at the project driveway, thereby reducing the needfor project related motorists to make u-turns at adjacent intersections, or right-turns around the block.

Figure IV.F-3, page IV.F-22 of the DEIR provides the forecasted percentage assignment of project trips atthe project driveway and adjacent study intersections. The project driveway, (which will be located in thevicinity of the existing north leg of the Gorham Avenue/San Vicente Boulevard intersection), is proposedto be placed under traffic signal control and coordinated with the traffic signal at the proposed realignedintersection of Gorham Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. This will allow project trips exiting the siteto turn right onto westbound San Vicente Boulevard, or proceed to the proposed left-turn pocket at theGorham Avenue intersection, which will allow left-turns to southbound Gorham Avenue or u-turns fortraffic destined to eastbound San Vicente Boulevard.

To provide a conservative assessment of potential project-related impacts, the traffic analysis assumes aportion of exiting project trips will utilize the Gorham Avenue left-turn pocket for u-turns. It has alsobeen assumed that a portion of exiting project trips will complete a u-turn further west at the MontanaAvenue intersection and turn right around the block via Montana Avenue and Barrington Avenue. FigureIV.F-3 provides the following percentages of assigned exiting project trips: 22% are assumed to make au-turn at the Gorham Avenue intersection, 27% are assumed to make a u-turn at the Montana Avenueintersection, and 17% are assumed to turn right at Montana Avenue, then turn right again at BarringtonAvenue.



_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4


Traffic mitigation: The dollar amount required of the developer should at least equal the market value ofthe Gorham acreage. Traffic mitigation contributions should not be used for undergrounding utility linessince this is a requirement under the Commercial Corner Development statute and the SVSCSP, and notsomething the developer is “giving” to the community.

RESPONSE:


The DEIR only recommends measures required to mitigate project related impacts. The funding andimplementation of the mitigation measures is determined by the Lead Agency (i.e., the City of LosAngeles). As discussed in their July 26, 2000 letter, LADOT has determined that the project would needto fund a 53-signal Adaptive Traffic Control System (ATCS), at an estimated cost of $636,000.00.Additionally, pursuant to Section 5.A of the WLA TIMP, the applicant is required to pay, or guaranteepayment of, a Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) Fee prior to issuance of any building permit.LADOT has estimated the preliminary TIA fee to be $425,800.

LADOT also has indicated that pursuant to Section 6.B of the WLA TIMP, in-lieu credit against the TIAFee shall be given for all of portions of regional or subregional improvements. DOT has determined thatthe funding of the design and implementation the ATCS upgrade and a majority of the improvements toBarrington Avenue would qualify for in-lieu credits against the TIA Fee. The maximum allowable in-lieucredit is 90% of the TIA Fee. The final TIA Fee will be determined after all mitigations have beensuitably guaranteed.


IV. The list of related projects (page II-5 to II-8) is inadequate and causes the DEIR analysis tosignificantly under-represent the massive number of commercial and residential projects currently beingconstructed or planned in Brentwood itself. This under identification projects leads to faulty analysisthroughout the DEIR in terms of environmental impact.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

A. It is inaccurate to state that within a 1.5-mile radius of the proposed project site there are only 15projects currently under construction, proposed, or pending. The DEIR fails to take into account the four-story mixed used project under construction on San Vicente Blvd. just east of Barrington, thecondominium building on Barrington and Montana, the condominiums under construction at Gorham andWestgate, the 18-story commercial building planned for Barrington and Wilshire, and constructionplanned for the Veterans’ Administration grounds.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Topical Response 6 for a discussion of related projects and cumulative impactanalysis. A discussion of related projects is provided in the DEIR in Section II.B, Related Projects,beginning on page II-5. Table II-1, page II-6 of the DEIR provides a list of the related projects, which arealso shown by location on Figure II-3, page II-7 (the “18-story commercial building” referenced by thecommenter is shown as project #2 on Figure II-3).

Review of City files and conversations with City staff confirm that no applications have been submittedregarding any potential development on the Veterans Administration (VA) property located along the SanDiego Freeway to the east. Therefore, under CEQA guidelines, any potential development on the VAproperty can not be characterized as a “known” project at this time, and thus, is not required to beconsidered in the DEIR. It is concluded that the current development projects identified in the projectarea which were not included in the list of related projects provided in the DEIR will add a relativelysmall number of new trips to the local street system. These additional trips are adequately accounted forthe annual traffic growth factor applied to the existing traffic counts, which is used in the DEIR trafficanalysis to forecast future traffic conditions, in addition to the future traffic that may be generated by therelated projects identified in the DEIR. Thus, the DEIR provides a sufficiently conservative forecast ofthe future pre-project traffic volumes on the local street system.


B. The study area for related projects is inaccurate and the results of the study are deficient. What is thejustification for establishing a 1.5-mile radius? Since Barrington and San Vicente Blvd. are major arteriesfor east-west traffic as well as north-south traffic flow not only from Brentwood but from the recentintense commercial development in Santa Monica, perhaps a more realistic radius distance should beutilized. The DEIR does not report any impact from related projects in Santa Monica even though it isstated that a list was obtained from the City of Santa Monica. It is misleading to indicate no projectimpacts from Santa Monica. Brentwood has been severely impacted in the past few years by the massivebuilding in W. Los Angeles and Santa Monica. This qualitative difference must be quantitatively reflected


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

by a more thorough list of related projects and by expanding the radius examined because of the manyareas that feed traffic into Barrington and San Vicente.

RESPONSE:

See Response to KRISILOFFX-49 for a discussion of the related projects considered in the DEIR. CEQAguidelines require the Lead Agency (i.e., the City of Los Angeles) to determine the geographic study areawith respect to determination of related projects to be included in the DEIR. The 1.5 mile study radiusidentified on page II-5 of the DEIR was selected based on input from City of Los Angeles staff. Potentialprojects within the City of Santa Monica contained within the 1.5 mile radius (generally east of 26th Streetand north of Santa Monica Boulevard) were also considered. However, no related projects in the City ofSanta Monica within the study radius were identified.

The annual traffic growth factor is used in addition to traffic forecasted from the related projects toforecast future pre-project traffic conditions on the local roadway network. As stated on page IV.F-10,the traffic growth factor is used to account for increases in traffic resulting from projects not yet proposedor outside the study area.


V. Public Services, Fire Protection Comments:

A. Fire Dept and DWP: The project fire flow requirements according to the answer from the FireDepartment on December 1, 1998 projects the required fire flow at 6000 to 9000 GPM. The DEIR stateson page IV.J.4 that the fire flow as of December 30, 1998, provides 3800 GPM. This flow is deficient andno credits for building upgrades are mentioned. This flow was measured or calculated with the 6-inchwater main in place on that portion of Gorham to be vacated. DWP in its answer to the NOP datedJanuary 6, 1999, states “the abandonment of this water main may require an upgrade of the 6-inch waterline in San Vicente Blvd., north roadway". The DEIR is deficient in not addressing the probable reductionin fire flow with the abandonment of the water line in Gorham. Therefore the actual flow should bemeasured with the water line to be abandoned temporarily shut down and then addressed in the EIR.Furthermore the burden of the cost to increase the size of the main has not been addressed. Therequirements of the developer to increase the water flow rate in the grid serving the hydrants in the fireflow calculations do not advise the public of its portion of this proposed entitlement.

RESPONSE:

There will be no reduction in fire flow since any abandonment of the water line in Gorham Avenue mustbe compensated for by the upgrade of the water line in San Vicente Boulevard. Additionally, any waterline improvements must provide the fire flows determined by the Fire Department. Consequently, a water


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

line test with the Gorham water line temporarily shut down would not be productive since it is alreadyknown that the existing water lines can not provided the fire flows required by the Fire Department.Lastly, discussions regarding the costs of utility infrastructure improvements are outside the scope ofCEQA (see CEQA Guidelines §15131, Public Resources Code §21060.5).


These draft EIR comments are submitted on behalf of the Brentwood Community Council (BCC)Subcommittee. The BCC requests to be placed on all mailing lists related to this project and to receivenotifications and reports generated by this draft EIR.

RESPONSE:

The BCC will be placed on all mailing lists related to this project.

LETTER NO. FOOTEX

Ileana Foote11350 Bolas St.Los Angeles, CA 90049


COMMENT NO. FOOTEX-1:

My concerns with the proposed building project at 11711 San Vicente Bl. Are as follows:

Traffic patterns would be greatly increased. They now are difficult on San Vicente and will be increasedwhen the buildings by the Gap Store and the condo unit behind the library are completed.

a) During construction (I'm assuming 2 years) Barrington St. will be impassible with the sitebuilding equipment. Upon completion, this building will add to the traffic snarl on SanVicente by using this street for their Enter and Exit traffic, in addition to adding densitytraffic by additional restaurants, etc.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

The analysis of potential project related traffic impacts are described in the DEIR in Section IV.F,Transportation/Circulation and are summarized on Table IV.F-11, page IV.F-35 of the DEIR. As shown,prior to consideration of mitigation measures, the project is forecasted to result in significant trafficimpacts at three intersections. Table IV.F-12, page IV.F-40 of the DEIR indicates that withimplementation of the recommended mitigation measures, the traffic impacts of the project are reduced toless than significant levels.

Effects on traffic in the area due to project construction are anticipated to be short-term in nature.Extended closures of travel lanes on Barrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard to accommodateproject-related construction activities are not anticipated. The City’s Department of Building and Safetyand Department of Transportation will issue specific requirements for construction (i.e., haul route,staging, etc.) prior to issuance of a building permit for the project.

See Response to Comment BEITLERX-5 for a discussion of the proposed site access configuration at theproject.


b) Closing Gorham will add to the traffic problem, as it is now used as an artery off SanVicente.

RESPONSE:

The reader is referred to Topical Response 8 for a discussion of the analysis of potential project relatedtraffic impacts which consider the potential net new trips due to the proposed development, as well as thererouting of existing trips on the local street system as a result of the proposed closure of Gorham Avenuebetween Barrington Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard. As shown in Tables IV.F-11 and IV.F-12,potential project related traffic impacts (i.e., due to the proposed project and the Gorham Avenue closure)are forecasted to be less than significant.


c) The alley behind the building site is very narrow and is used by condo/apts alongMontana. It cannot support service trucks and additional traffic from this building.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________


364729.4

RESPONSE:

Several commenters have suggested that the project may contribute to congestion in the alley to the north.Accordingly, a topical response has been prepared for these comments. The reader is referred to TopicalResponse 9. As discussed in Topical Response 9, access for delivery vehicles serving the project isproposed via the alley along the north edge of the project site. All other vehicles associated with theproject will utilize the project driveway located on San Vicente Boulevard west of Barrington Avenue.Therefore, the only trips generated by the project on the alley are expected to be delivery vehicles.Utilization of the alley for access by project service vehicles is appropriate and consistent with the accessscheme at other commercial developments in the project vicinity as noted by the commenter. It is statedin the DEIR on page III-10 that the project is required to dedicate and improve the alley along the projectfrontage by 2.5 feet. This additional width will improve operations for all vehicles that currently utilizethe alley.


I ask that you decline the permit for this building. We need to think downsize not increase in this fragilearea of Brentwood.

RESPONSE:


Brentwood Final EIR - Section IV Resp. to Comments

Documents