0ctobei 6, 2u14 S0CCESSF0LLY

S0BNITTEB
1u614 8:1S A.N.
Augustine Eichwalu
12SS Sunset Blvu.
Los Angeles, CA 9uu26

Los Angeles City Aiea Planning Commission
co City of Los Angeles Planning Bept.
Figueioa Plaza 0ffice
2u1 N. Figueioa St., 4
th
Flooi
Los Angeles, CA 9uu12

RE: Case No. vesting Tentative Tiact Nap No. 72SSS-CN
CPC-2u1S-SS19-BB-SPR
ENv-2u1S-SS2u-NNB-Rec1

Auuiess: 118S-1247 V Sunset Blvu. anu 917 N. Eveiett St.

Appeal of: Auvisoiy Agency's Beteimination Lettei uateu Sept. 26, 2u14
Auuenuum to ENv-2u1S-SS2u-NNB
ENv-2u1S-SS2u-NNB



0n Septembei 2S, 2u14, the Auvisoiy Agency piepaieu an Auuenuum to the Initial
StuuyNitigateu Negative Beclaiation (ISNNB) foi what it chaiacteiizes as "minoi"
changes to the uevelopment pioject locateu at the auuiess listeu above, heieinaftei
iefeiieu to as "Pioject." This is a mis-statement of the facts. The auuition of moie
than S,Suu squaie feet of commeicial space is an inciease of 42%, qualifying it as a
new anu uiffeient pioject. The ISNNB analyzeu commeicial squaie footage at
8,4u6 sf., the "#$ %&'(#)* just ievealeu last week has 11,9u6 sf. of ietail aiea. This
intensifieu use has significant impacts on vaiious enviionmental factois anu
iequiies that the NNB be ie-ciiculateu anu upgiaueu to an Enviionmental Impact
Repoit (EIR).

+' '%%'&*,"-*. /'& %,01-) &#2-#$ '/ "#$ 3&'(#)*

With only 1u uays between the unveiling of the "new" pioject, anu the timing of its
appeal ueauline, the public has not hau an oppoitunity to comment on the new
pioject oi heai it piesenteu in a public foium. CEQA (Califoinia Enviionmental
Quality Act) iequiies that theie be an accuiate anu stable pioject uesciiption. A
finite pioject is ciucial foi analysis by both the public anu the uecision makeis.



456 3783896: ;<3 =9 =+>8+9=946+4 ?=45 456 <33@=><A@6 B8+=+C

The pioposeu Pioject seeks a Bensity Bonus, but ielies on 0ff-Nenu incentives to
accommouate its ietail component, which is not in compliance with the State
0iuinance.

:#"D-*. A'",D -")#"*-2#D EF. "'* 0# F0,D#G *' /,&*H#& *H# &#*F-1 %&'/-*F0-1-*.
'/ F E-I#GJ,D# %&'(#)*K #2#" -/ *H# )'EE,"-*. D,%%'D#G1. FDLD /'& -*M

Accoiuing to the Auuenuum anu the ISNNB the applicant seeks to peimit two S-
stoiy mixeu-use builuings in lieu of S-stoiy, a 72 foot maximum height in a (C2-1vL)
4S foot zone, anu incieaseu flooi aiea iatio. The applicant is bunuling togethei
these incentives anu claiming them all as pait of the Bensity Bonus piogiam. In
ieality, the incieaseu height as iequesteu anu auuitional stoiies aie in violation of
the 0iuinance. Bensity Bonus incentives aie uiscietionaiy anu only alloweu to the
extent that they aie necessaiy to off-set the economic impacts ielateu to the
piovision of those 7% of units. Theie exists no coiollaiy between the economic
feasibility of 7% low-income units anu the excessive iequests foi 72' ft. maximum
height anu the auuitional floois. The tiuth is ievealeu in the text of the NNB, page
249:

!"# %&'(#)* +,- '&./.0,112 3#-./0#3 ,- , 4.5#6-*'&2 ,11 &#-.3#0*.,1 3#5#1'78#0* *",*
7&'7'-#3 *' 9*.1.:# , -#)'03 ;06<#09 =0)#0*.5# *' ,11'+ 4'& ,0 ,33.*.'0,1 -*'&2 ,03 >>
4##* .0 "#./"*? @'+#5#&A .0 &#-7'0-# *' *"# )'8890.*2A *"# %&'(#)* ,33#3 , -./0.4.),0*
)'88#&).,1 )'87'0#0* ,1'0/ B90-#* C'91#5,&3 ,03 >D -9&719- /9#-* &#-.3#0*.,1
7,&E.0/ -7,)#- +".)" &#-91*#3 .0 '0# ,33.*.'0,1 1#5#1 .0 '&3#& *' 8,.0*,.0 *"# 3#-.&#3
&#-.3#0*.,1 3#0-.*2? F.*" *"# ,33.*.'0,1 -*'&2A *"# %&'(#)* 0' 1'0/#& G9,1.4.#- 4'& *"#
;06<#09 "#./"* .0)#0*.5#?
The applicant ieveals that the incentives aie neeueu to accommouate the ietail, anu
then misleaus the ieauei by claiming that the oiiginal pioject was S stoiies. The
oiiginal pioject was S stoiies (Eveiett poition) anu 4 stoiies (Sunset poition), anu
an all-iesiuential Bensity Bonus pioject consisting of 2u1 iesiuences anu 221
paiking stalls.

The photo anu aiticle publisheu on the Eastsiuei LA blog (www.eastsiueila.com)
uesciibes a piofitable Bensity Bonus pioject using the above configuiation. Bensity
Bonus piojects aie alloweu incentives (waiveis) only to the extent they aie
necessaiy to ensuie the low-income housing poition of a pioject. Bow then can the
applicant claim that the numeious 0n anu 0ff-Nenu incentives aie suuuenly
necessaiy solely to ensuie the feasibility of 7 % low income units of 21u iesiuential
units anu 267 iesiuential paiking stalls. The 2u1 unit oiiginal pioject was only
asking foi a FAR aujustment anu maintaineu piofitability with that one incentive.
The piofoima anu its analysis was piepaieu by the applicant anu uoes not appeai to
have been ievieweu by an objective, outsiue accounting consultant, calling into
question the valiuity of the entiie uocument. As such, the piofoima foi the Pioject is
inconclusive in its ability to piove that the excessive incentives aie tieu only to the
feasibility of the low-income uwellings. The City must finu that this pioject, with its
cuiient list of iequests, uoes not qualify unuei the Bensity Bonus 0iuinance.
The pioposeu "tiact map appioval is contingent upon the appioval of the Bensity
Bonus." (p. S9, Becision Lettei). The Auvisoiy Agency fails to iecognize that the
pioject is in violation of the cuiient zoning thiesholus foi height, FAR anu paiking,
anu without the Bensity Bonus incentives the Pioject woulu nevei be peimitteu. If
the same iequests weie maue as uiscietionaiy Zoning vaiiances theie woulu be no
basis foi appioval.


456 :69=C+ 87 =;378N6;6+4 8O 456 3783896: 9PA:=N=9=8+ =9 +84
>8+9=946+4 ?=45 456 <33@=><A@6 C6+67<@ 3@<+

As uesigneu, the Pioject is inconsistent with the stateu objectives of the Silvei Lake
- Echo Paik - Elysian valley Community Plan. Community Plans aie manuateu by
the State anu must be consiueieu within the planning hieiaichy as such. It will
cause auveise enviionmental impacts to the suiiounuing neighboihoous that aie
significant, peimanent anu without mitigation.

4&F//-) F"G *&-% )',"*D F&# -"F)),&F*#1. )F1),1F*#G

Applicant eiioneously ielies on ITE (Institute of Tiaffic Engineeis) lanu use tiip
coue #82u foi the new 11,9u6 sf. ietail pioject. ITE coue #82u is foi Shopping
Centeis, such as one might encountei in a subuiban neighboihoou, not in a Nixeu-
0se uiban infill pioject. The ITE uefines coue #82u as:

HI B"'77.0/ )#0*#& .- ,0 .0*#/&,*#3 /&'97 '4 )'88#&).,1 #-*,J1.-"8#0*- *",* .-
71,00#3A 3#5#1'7#3A '+0#3 ,03 8,0,/#3 ,- , 90.*? I -"'77.0/ )#0*#&K- )'87'-.*.'0 .-
&#1,*#3 *' .*- 8,&E#* ,&#, .0 *#&8- '4 -.:#A 1'),*.'0 ,03 *27# '4 -*'&#? I -"'77.0/
)#0*#& ,1-' 7&'5.3#- '06-.*# 7,&E.0/ 4,).1.*.#- -944.).#0* *' -#&5# .*- '+0 7,&E.0/
3#8,03-?L

The applicant is not opeiating a Shopping Centei as uefineu by ITE Lanu 0se Coue
82u. The applicant uesciibes the ietail space as commeicial conuominiums foi sale.
No integiation oi ietail planning has been offeieu by the applicant, anu the paiking
iequiiement has not been met. In fact, the applicant fails to uesignate lanu use
coues to the commeicial units as iequiieu, anu insteau ielies on the ITE 82u as a
catch-all foi its ietail component. 0sing this one-size-fits-all appioach to its yet-
unueteimineu ietail composition ienueis inaccuiate anu aitificially low tiip counts
that uo not ieflect actual neighboihoou ietail patteins. CEQA iequiies that
enviionmental stuuies use the most conseivative estimates anu woist case scenaiio
analyses so that uecision-makeis aie unlikely to eiioi in juugment. The applicant's
tiaffic engineei has violateu CEQA by using the most convenient ITE coue that
piouuces a favoiably low tiip geneiation count, without taking into account the
existing patteins of use within the immeuiate aiea that aie likely to iepeat within
the new pioject.

Foi instance, ITE #9S1 is useu foi a neighboihoou iestauiant such as a Pizza Pailoi,
Bistio oi Nexican Foou. The peak PN houi tiip iate foi ITE #9S1 is 7.49, wheieas
the #82u Shopping Centei has a peak PN tiip foiecast of only S.71. Accuiately
ieflecting the piobable intenueu use of a ietail space will iesult in tiip calculations
that can be twice as many (oi moie) than what has been offeieu in the
enviionmental uocument. ITE coues attacheu as EXBIBIT 1.

A sample of the new 11,9u6 sf ietail component is attacheu as EXBIBIT 2 showing
plausible futuie uses of the ietail space following the existing pattein of
neighboihoou uses. When a compaiison is maue using actual ITE Lanu 0se Coues
foi neighboihoou seiving ietail uses such as a Yoga Stuuio, BakeiyBeli, Biy
Cleaneis, vegan Restauiant, Baii Salon anu uastio Pub within the new 11,9u6 sf.
ietail space, it is cleai that the catch-all ITE #82u falls shoit. 0sing an aveiage gioup
of neighboihoou uses in the EXBIBIT 2 sample, it is shown that AN Peak Boui tiips
inciease by 47% anu PN Peak Boui tiips inciease by 44% ovei the geneiic
Shopping Centei (ITE 82u) uesciiption listeu in the enviionmental uocument. The
applicant must be askeu to ie-ciiculate the NNB to account foi impioveu tiip
geneiation counts that follow CEQA guiuelines using the most conseivative
estimates foi actual anu likely patteins of use. As the sample shows, ieal-life tiip
geneiation is likely to piouuce appioximately 4S% moie tiips than have been
estimateu in the Auuenuum.

It is woith noting that Table 4.2 on page S6 of the Tiaffic Stuuy shows futuie Level
0f Seivice with pioject conuitions uuiing the Peak AN houi at Sunset Blvu. anu
Naiion Ave. (the uiiveway) to ieach L0S C with a vC Ratio of u.uS9. A significant
impact woulu have been founu if the vC Ratio ieacheu u.u4u, 1-one hunuieuth of a
uecimal gieatei. See EXBIBIT S. If the neighboihoou ietail was accuiately
accounteu foi with piopei ITE coues, insteau of the 82u catch all, the Peak AN vC
Ratio woulu ceitainly uemonstiate a thiesholu impact.

7#)-&),1F*-'" '/ ;+: &#Q,-&#G /'& &#*F-1 %F&L-"R E-D)F1),1F*-'"

The ISNNB Auuenuum anu the Auvisoiy Agency ueteimination iely on the now-
uefunct East Los Angeles State Enteipiise Zone (SEZ) foi the applicant's ielief fiom
paiking iequiiements set by law. Although ZINAS continues to list the State
Enteipiise Zone in its system, SEZ's weie iepealeu in }uly 2u1S when the State
legislatuie passeu A.B. 9S anu theie is no iecoiu of juiisuiction foi the continueu use
of the SEZ. 0nuei the iepealeu Act paiking iequiiements weie ieuuceu to 2 spaces
pei 1uuu sf of new ietail uevelopment. Since the SEZ piogiam has been eliminateu,
the applicant must ieveit to 41uuu sf. oi S1uuu sf., uepenuing upon the lanu use
uesignation. See LABBS bulletin PZC 2uu2-u11 attacheu as EXBIBIT 4.

>F*FD*&'%H-) +#-RH0'&H''G 4&F//-) ="*&,D-'"

Naiion Ave. is the Pioject's piincipal uiiveway. All cais enteiing the pioject heau-
on fiom the West will queue on Naiion Ave. All cais exiting the Pioject to access the
1u1 fwy Noith anu South will exit the pioject, uiiving on Naiion anu Bellevue
Avenues, which aie entiiely iesiuential stieets.

Naiion Ave. is the Easteily gateway to the Angelino Beights BP0Z; the fiist BP0Z in
the City. It is a unique iesiuential neighboihoou with piotecteu zoning to pieseive
histoiic single anu multi-family piopeities.

Angelino Beights has a numbei of unique chaiacteiistics that affect local tiaffic. It is
home to a vaiiety of '"R'-"R /-1E-"R %&'(#)*D incluuing television seiies anu multi-
pait Notion Pictuie fianchises such as "Fast anu Fuiious." Film piojects close uown
oi substantially block sections of Naiion anu Bellevue foi filming use at least S uays
pei month. Likewise, Bougei tiaffic queues on local stieets befoie anu aftei games
at least 81 uays of the yeai.

Angelino Beights has abunuant peuestiian activity anu no signalizeu inteisections.
A chuich, small paik, convenience stoie anu the entiance to Echo Paik Lake, aie all
founu on Naiion anu Bellevue between the Pioject anu 1u1 fieeway access. Theie
aie S stop signs that Pioject iesiuents must heeu as they come anu go between the
Pioject at the Naiion uiiveway anu the 1u1 Noith. Theie aie S stops signs anu a
tuin onto a Local Resiuential stieet necessaiy to come anu go between the Pioject
anu the 1u1 Noith.

The tiip geneiation count foi the newly unveileu pioject with 11,9u6 sf. of ietail will
now ieach at least S,SS9 uiiveway tiips, as inuicateu in the Auuenuum. Biiveway
analyses aie not subject to pass-by ueuuctions, accoiuing to both LAB0T anu ITE.
The applicant's tiaffic stuuy uesciibes the tiip uistiibution on page S7:

- 2u% of the tiips towaius the noith
- Su% of the tiips towaius the south
- 2S% of the tiips towaius the east
- 2S% of the tiips towaius the west

As the map below inuicates, the Naiion Ave. uiiveway (2) iepiesents all uiiveway
tiips east anu west, oi Su% of the above uaily pioject tiip geneiation:
S,SS9 2 = 168u tiips.



Accoiuing to ITE iules followeu by LAB0T, theie is no tiip ieuuction at pioject
uiiveways, so the entiie 1,68u east anu west tiips woulu be on Naiion Ave., a
iesiuential stieet in an BP0Z. This iepiesents a significant intiusion within a
piotecteu neighboihoou 0veilay. Resiuents living on Naiion have manually
counteu cuiient total uaily tiips at appioximately 1u2S. 4H# -"*&'G,)*-'" '/ SKTUV
"#$ *&-%D F* *H# ;F&-'" <2#M G&-2#$F. )'"D*-*,*#D F" -")&#FD# -" *&F//-)
2'1,E# 0. '2#& STWXM The tiaffic stuuy faileu to count existing uaily tiips on
Naiion piecisely because it woulu ieveal a neighboihoou intiusion of epic
piopoitions, such that impacts to the enviionment, public safety anu quality of life
woulu be catastiophic anu unmitigable.

4H&#DH'1G '/ D-R"-/-)F")# #I)##G#G '" 1')F1 &#D-G#"*-F1 D*&##*

Fuitheimoie, the applicant's tiaffic stuuy faileu to account foi intiusions onto the
local iesiuential stieet E. Eugewaie Ru. at Naiion Ave. Accoiuing to page 17 of the
August 2u14 LAB0T policies anu pioceuuies hanubook, the thiesholu foi significant
enviionmental impacts on a local iesiuential stieet is 12u tiips. With 1,68u new
tiips planneu to tiavel on Naiion Ave., only 12u of them woulu have to tuin on E.
Eugewaie Ru. to ieach the thiesholu. Pioject iesiuents will come anu go fiom the
1u1 South via this local stieet. Ceitainly, many moie than 12u of the 1,68u will
tiavel on the 1u1 South via E. Eugewaie, Temple anu 0nion. This is the fastest anu
most-often tiavelleu ioute, yet the Tiaffic Stuuies, the NNB, anu its Auuenuum fail
to auuiess Pioject tiaffic accessing this majoi Bighway.

>'EE,"-*. 31F" 3'1-). SYJYMS :'GR#& 4&F//-) 01')LD %&'(#)*

At no point in the enviionmental uocuments oi the Tiaffic Stuuies is Bougei tiaffic
mentioneu. Thousanus of cais queue along Sunset Blvu. at least 81 uays pei yeai,
sitting at a stanu-still uiiectly in fiont of the 82S-foot long Pioject. This tiaffic lasts
foi appioximately two houis befoie each game, anu foi about 4S minutes aftei each
game.

Bougei tiaffic is not an anomaly; it is guaianteeu to happen. To uelibeiately anu
methouically omit the "Suu lb. uoiilla" that is Bougei Tiaffic fiom all Pioject iepoits
is iathei questionable. The NNB uelibeiately evaues CEQA manuates foi "full
uisclosuie" of enviionmental factois. Fuithei it blatantly ignoies Community Plan
Policy 12-2.1 that uemanus "special tiaffic opeiations pioceuuies" anu "tuin lane
opeiations iestiictions to manage tiaffic in the vicinity of Bougei stauium to hanule
game uay tiaffic volumes."

In auuiessing the above Piogiam 12-2.1 the applicant flippantly iesponus that the
uevelopei has agieeu to ie-stiipe the inteisection at SunsetBeauuiy, but fails to
aumit that the pioject's thiee uiiveways aie locateu on the ueuicateu Bougei Shuttle
Bus lane, anu that they must pioviue mitigation in accoiuance with the Piogiam. ="
/F)*K 0,-1G-"R &#D-G#"*D $-11 HF2# *' Z-11#RF11.[ )&'DD *H# AP9J8+@\ 1F"# G,&-"R
US RFE# GF.D *' F))#DD *H#-& H'E#DM

The issue of Bougei tiaffic anu a plan foi auuiessing iesiuent access to anu fiom
uiiveways anu tuin lanes must be auuiesseu in an EIR. Bougei tiaffic alieauy
ienueis Sunset Blvu. a L0S F foi houis on game uays. The auuition of 66u iesiuents
anu hunuieus of ietail pations attempting to access the Pioject cannot be ignoieu.

456 9=46 =9 +84 35\9=><@@\ 9P=4<A@6 O87 456 3783896: 4\36 8O
:6N6@83;6+4

Wilson ueosciences piepaieu a iepoit (EXBIBIT S) that conceins abutting
neighbois on all siues of the Pioject. The iepoit founu pioblematic slope stability
exists at the site anu concluueu that auuitional uesign measuies weie iecommenueu
to ensuie that the Pioject is feasible at the site. ueoTechnologies claims to have
auuiesseu these uesign measuies, but nothing substantive is seen in its iepoit to
guaiantee that the Pioject will not upset fiactuies mappeu in 2uu6 anu 2u1S.

"The uevelopment plan incluues steep (steepei than 2:1) manufactuieu cut slopes.
Slopes steepei than 2:1 aie susceptible to long teim suificial instability uue to
weatheiing anu eiosion, anu iequiie moie stiingent maintenance." (Wilson
ueosciences lettei to neighboi Boovei Tang, uateu August 4, 2u14),

When will the public, anu moie specifically Aiagon's potential neighbois, leain
about the mitigation anu maintenance plan Aiagon will uevelop to piotect aujacent
piopeities fiom potential lanusliues. CEQA uemanus that we have the iight to
know BEF0RE the pioject is appioveu, not aftei the fact.

The NNB uenies the potential foi lanusliues exist at the site. A piofessional
ueologist hiieu by a conceineu neighboi uisagiees with the conclusions in the NNB
anu suggests that theie is a ieal concein since ueotechnologies only "peifoimeu
suificial slope stability of cut slopes at 27 uegiees giauient." (EXBIBIT S) The
pioject will actually be making much steepei cuts (4S uegiees) in the beuiock than
the 27 uegiees testeu. Why isn't the consultant being askeu to peifoim suificial
slope stability testing of 4S uegiee cuts, when those aie the most ciitical cuts to the
beuiock. This is a giave concein foi abutting neighbois. It is the City's uuty unuei
CEQA to fully-exploie the potential uangeis anu enviionmental impacts that have
been biought to its attention.

Wilson ueosciences fuithei claiifies the potential uangei] Z?H#" D1'%# F"R1#D
D*##%#& *HF" Y^ G#R&##D F&# )'"D-G#&#GK 1'$#& /F)*'&D '/ DF/#*. F&# '0*F-"#GM[

The Los Angeles Bepaitment of Builuing anu Safety seems to agiee with the Wilson
ueosciences iepoit. Pioject conuitions on page 26 of the Tiact Nap uecision lettei
state that "the pioposeu cut shall be inclineu as steep as SS uegiees. Since the slope
exceeus anu inclination of 26 uegiees, a mouification to the City of Los Angeles
Builuing Coue shall be necessaiy."

If cuts steepei than 27 uegiees aie moie uangeious anu expose the Pioject anu its
neighbois to "lowei factois of safety," why is the City appioving this cut. The plans
call foi a 4S uegiee cut, yet the City only uiscusses the SS uegiee cut in its
Beteimination Lettei anu iecommenus mouifying the Builuing Coue to
accommouate the Bevelopei, iathei than piotecting neighbois. The Builuing Coue
is in place with goou ieason. To uemanu that it be changeu to accommouate this
Pioject is iiiesponsible.

6=7 "#)#DDF&. *' #2F1,F*# D1'%# D*F0-1-*. F"G DF/#*. '/ %&'%'D#G ),*D

Two piofessional ueologists have uemonstiateu uiffeiing opinions on this mattei.
0nuei CEQA, anu accoiuing to the iecent iuling C#&E#1#2 @.11-.3# %&#-#&5,*.'0 5? M.*2
'4 C#&E#1#2A A1S12S4 (Fiist Appellate Bistiict, Febiuaiy 1S, 2u12) an Enviionmental
Impact Repoit is necessaiy. The couit founu that the existence of uiffeiing expeit
opinions was alone sufficient to meet the faii aigument exception anu tiiggei an
EIR.

456 9=46 =9 +84 35\9=><@@\ 9P=4<A@6 O87 456 3783896: :6+9=4\ 8O 456
:6N6@83;6+4

O<7 A'",D /'& ;-I#GJPD# "'* D,%%'&*#G 0. *H# >'EE,"-*. 31F"
Figuie S of the Silvei LakeEcho PaikElysian valley community plan (CP) shows a
map of the "locations of uiscietionaiy Nixeu-0se flooi aiea bonus" attacheu as
EXBIBIT 6. This map ieflects the aieas wheie Nixeu-0se builuings aie encouiageu
anu alloweu the auuitional FAR. The map cleaily shows, anu the text of CP objective
2-4.S states, that Sunset Blvu is limiteu to 1.S:1 FAR except on the paicels iuentifieu
in Figuie 1. Pei the map, the Pioject site is N0T INCL0BEB as an aiea uesignateu
foi uiscietionaiy Nixeu-0se bonuses. Appioval of incieaseu FAR is not suppoiteu
by the Community Plan, which is the guiuing uocument foi uiscietionaiy actions.

3&'(#)* -D -")'"D-D*#"* $-*H C'F1DK 3'1-)-#D _ 80(#)*-2#D '/ *H# >'EE,"-*. 31F"

The NNB anu its Auuenuum claim that the Pioject is consistent with Community
Plan 0bjective 1.1, "to achieve anu maintain a housing supply sufficient to meet the
uiveise economic anu socioeconomic neeus of the cuiient anu piojecteu population
to the yeai 2u1u," because it pioviues new housing anu a limiteu numbei of
affoiuable units. Bowevei, the unueilying policies behinu 0bjective 1.1 conflict with
the Pioject's natuie anu chaiactei with the following:

1-1.1 Naintain an auequate supply anu uistiibution of multiple family, low
income anu special neeus housing oppoitunities in the Community
Plan Aiea.
1-1.S Piotect existing single family iesiuential neighboihoous fiom new
out-of-scale uevelopment.
1-1.4 Encouiage new infill iesiuential uevelopment that complements
existing uevelopment anu aichitectuial style.
1-1.S Piotect existing stable single family anu low-uensity multiple family
iesiuential neighboihoous fiom encioachment by highei uensity
iesiuential anu othei incompatible uses.
1-1.6 Piomote the pieseivation of existing single anu multiple family
neighboihoous.

The Pioject is uesciibeu as two S-stoiy builuings with a maximum height 72-feet
above giaue, locateu on a seiies of 17 lots fionting Sunset Blvu. totaling
appioximately 82S feet with a total 197,8S8 sf. The histoiic uetacheu single family
bungalows uiiectly to the noith of the Pioject aie appioximately SSu sf. with a
height of 1S ft. The multi-family builuings to the east behinu the Pioject aveiage S8
ft. tall anu appioximately 6,4uu sf.

4H# 3&'(#)* -D #"'&E',D1. ',*J'/JD)F1# $-*H "#-RH0'&-"R %&'%#&*-#DM =* -D TJ
4=;69 *F11#& F"G `TYJ4=;69 0-RR#& *HF" *H# H'E#D *' *H# "'&*Ha F"G YJ4=;69
*F11#& F"G `SJ4=;69 0-RR#& *HF" *H# F2#&FR# &#D-G#")#D *' *H# #FD*M This is not
a high uegiee of compatibility anu uoes not piotect the chaiactei anu scale of
neaiby neighboihoous, incluuing the histoiic BP0Z which begins at Sunset Blvu.,
uiiectly acioss the stieet fiom the Pioject. A Pioject of the height, size, anu scale
sought by the applicant uoes not piomote pieseivation of neighboihoou chaiactei
oi the 0veilay Zone.

A Pioject that toweis ovei neighboiing stiuctuies, uepiiving them of light, aii anu
piivacy by cieating new conuo units that peep into backyaius, anu obscuie winuows
that foimeily fiameu uiban sunsets, unueimines the quality of life foi all who live
neaiby. A Pioject that cieates significant unmitigable tiaffic impacts to a piimaiy
ingiessegiess foi an entiie community, uoes not piotect that neighboihoou.
Rathei, it piomotes uegiauation of that neighboihoou.

4H# 3&'(#)* /,#1D C#"*&-/-)F*-'" 0. %&'2-G-"R 2#&. /#$ 1'$J-")'E# ,"-*D

While the pioject may auu iesiuential units, those units aie not evenly accessible
among the existing woiking-class population in the aiea, anu those most often
uisplaceu by new uevelopment. The lots that compiise the Pioject foimeily houseu
foui peimitteu, ient-contiolleu units, anu two unpeimitteu auu-on uwellings. The
new pioject will only ienuei 9 new affoiuable units, which haiuly auuiesses the
immeuiate, emeigency socioeconomic neeu foi moie low-income housing.

Contiaiy to statements in the NNB anu its Auuenuum, the Pioject fails to meet the
most funuamental 0bjective of the Community Plan. It is out-of-scale with aujacent
homes anu out-of-chaiactei with the suiiounuing histoiic neighboihoou. It causes
uetiimental tiaffic anu paiking impacts that cannot be mitigateu. It fails in
pioviuing the housing that the Community Plan yeains foi. Insteau, it cateis to
upwaiuly mobile gentiifying elite, while ieluctantly pioviuing a net inciease of only
9 affoiuable uwellings.

456 :69=C+ 8O 456 9PA:=N=9=8+ =9 @=b6@\ 48 >76<46 9PA94<+4=<@
6+N=78+;6+4<@ =;3<>49 <+: <OO6>4 3PA@=> 56<@45

The ueotechnologies iepoit anu the AEI phase II iepoit both call foi auuitional
testing to veiify ceitain potentially toxic conuitions piioi to the stait of
constiuction. The Auvisoiy Agency ueteimination lettei iuentifies a seiies of
potential hazaius believeu to exist on the piopeity uue to its age anu iecoiu of
foimei uses. The uistuibing fact that must be auuiesseu is: why the uevelopei is
alloweu to wait until the public comment peiiou is ovei to test foi the piesence anu
levels of toxic substances.

CEQA iequiies a "goou faith effoit at full uisclosuie." Withholuing ciitical,
potentially life-thieatening infoimation fiom the public about possible impacts on
health is illegal. The NNB anu the Beteimination Lettei libeially uiscuss the
piobability of toxic substances known to cause cancei, biain uamage anu lung
uisease such as asbestos, leau, meicuiy anu methane. The uocuments uemonstiate
a high piobability foi these substances, anu the City has askeu foi consultations anu
assessments fiom piofessional abatement contiactois J#4'&# *"# -*,&* '4
)'0-*&9)*.'0, which is entiiely outsiue of public view. Piofessionals must be
consulteu immeuiately anu theii finuings anu iecommenuations maue known to
local iesiuents within Suu feet.

OF-1,&# *' -G#"*-/. 1')F1 D)H''1D F"G D#"D-*-2# &#)#%*'&D

The enviionmental uocument asks the applicant if they will emit hazaiuous
emissions within one-quaitei mile of a school, (page 186). The applicant iesponus
that the Pioject is not in close pioximity to any 79J1.) schools. Bowevei, one block
to the south theie is a piivate school "New Covenant Acauemy," but the applicant
uismisses the significance of the school because 1) it's a piivate school, anu 2) its
aujacent to an Auto Repaii shop calleu Seng's:


The assumptions maue by the applicant aie nothing shoit of astonishing. CEQA is
conceineu about impacts to sensitive ieceptois, not whethei they attenu public oi
piivate schools next to an auto iepaii. The absuiu anu uelibeiately evasive
iesponse by the applicant shoulu be a ieu-flag to City Staff. Ceitainly the pioject will
emit hazaius within mile of this school. It is a SIuNIFICANT impact.

?HF* F0',* *H# 1'$J-")'E# 5#FGD*F&* 3&#J9)H''1 S 01')L F$F.c

The applicant faileu to locate anu iuentify a State Beaustait pie-school foi low-
income chiluien locateu at 7u7 E. Kensington Ru. wheie it ciosses Naiion Ave.
"Little Fiienus" pie-school seives chiluien 2 - S yeais olu that live within the
immeuiate neighboihoou. The pioject will emit fugitive uust anu toxic paiticles
within mile of a Pie-School. This iepiesents a SIuNIFICANT impact.

Similaily, theie aie 7 chiluien anu S touuleis living immeuiately to the noith, less
than Su feet away, who will be exposeu to high concentiations of fugitive uust
containing untolu quantities of toxic paiticles. Theie aie no mitigation measuies
that can possibly fully-piotect iesiuents living in such close pioximity to the Pioject,
but that shoulun't be the applicant's iationale foi completely failing to auuiess the
health conceins of iesiuents living next uooi.

4H# FG(F)#"* &#D-G#"*D &#Q,#D* *HF* E'"-*'&-"R G#2-)#D 0# -"D*F11#G /'& *H#
G,&F*-'" '/ *H# )'"D*&,)*-'" %#&-'G *' )'"*-",',D1. E#FD,&# /,R-*-2# G,D*
#1#E#"*D F"G *'I-) #E-DD-'"D 1#2#1DM

The applicant has not auequately auuiesseu noise anu emissions levels geneiateu
by tiuck iuling, tiuck staging, uemolition anu hauling. Theie is inauequate
uiscussion of the use of bio fuels anu low emission heavy equipment such as
excavatois anu bull uozeis. Because the City has not iequiieu the applicant to
conuuct testing foi the hazaius in auvance of the heaiing piocess, the applicant has
not agieeu to contiact ceitifieu toxic abatement specialists anu is cuiiently only
iequiieu to consult with them. This is unacceptable anu a violation of CEQA
piocesses.

>8+>@P9=8+

Theie aie myiiau pioblems with the appioval of the Tiact Nap anu the Auuenuum
to the NNB.
- The Pioject has unueigone significant changes since the ISNNB anu
neeus to be ieciiculateu
- The Pioject uoes not confoim to impoitant elements within the
Community Plan.
- The applicant manipulates the Bensity Bonus piogiam to finance its ietail
opeiations.
- It ielies on SEZ paiking ieuuctions that have been iepealeu.
- The pioject has inaccuiately accounteu foi Tiips anu Tiaffic impacts in all
analyses, incluuing the Auuenuum.
- The Pioject tiamples on the local neighboihoou with its excessive height
anu massing; its inauequate paiking; its incessant tiaffic; anu its toxic
emissions in close pioximity to babies, touuleis anu school chiluien.

The Pioject's NNB anu Auuenuum uoes not iepiesent a "goou faith effoit at full
uisclosuie," in violation of CEQA. The enviionmental uocuments omit key analyses
that shoulu have been peifoimeu, anu it is stilteu to avoiu finuings of obvious
significant enviionmental impacts.

The Planning Commission shoulu iecommenu that the pioject not go foiwaiu until
all the enviionmental conceins have been fully anu piopeily auuiesseu in an EIR,
anu in accoiuance with the law.

I ieseive the iight to submit auuitional comments anu objections iegaiuing the
Bensity Bonus, the Auvisoiy Agency's appioval of the vesting Tentative Tiact Nap,
the NNB, anu its Auuenuum anu theii iespective Enviionmental Finuings thiough
the close of the auministiative pioceeuings ielateu to the Pioject.

Respectfully submitteu by:



________________________________________________________
Ni. Augustine Eichwalu
12SS Sunset Blvu.
Los Angeles, CA 9uu26