41
APPENDIX A-3 Scoping Comments
APPENDIX A-3
Scoping Comments
1
Erika Lam
To: Kimberly D. ComachoSubject: RE: Emailed comment/addition to NOP
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: MASSOUD ESHMOILI <[email protected]> Date: Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:49 PM Subject: 333 LA CIENEGA BLVD PROJECT To: [email protected]
RE: 333 LA CIENEGA BLVD PROJECT Case # ENV-2015-897-EIR Hi Alejandro, I wrote a short comment on paper on February 16th meeting, this is amendment and addition to that since there was not enough room to write. I live in 321 S. San Vicente apt #907, my father lives in same building apt # 605, he is 93 years old and this project will effect us and many others directly since it is right across from our unit. I appose to having a 20 story apartment building because of following reasons. 1. Blocking the sun, If this 20 story gets approved, we will have no sun what soever. 2. Air quality, blocking and trapping air flow due to having 20 story building and having the oil drilling company behind Beverly center mall on San Vicente, we need lower building size to let the air to get out, not 20 story, I lost my wife to cancer at age 34, My father had Lung cancer and we have enough pollution in this area, we do not need more. 3. Noise, during construction we will have a lot more noise than we have now and our windows are not double pane windows to prevent noise to come in. we have old people as well as small chilren in this building at home all day. 4. Traffic, this 20 story building will ad a lot more traffic to already congested traffic we have in this area. 5. Dust, allergies, Me and my daughter are allergic to dust, Building 20 story building will take a lot longer than 7 or 8 story, we will have a lot more dust coming to our unit much longer time. Thank you Massoud Michael Eshmoili
1
Erika Lam
To: Kimberly D. ComachoSubject: RE: 333 La Cienega Blvd project case#ENV-2015-897-EIR
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Youssef <[email protected]> Date: Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 4:08 PM Subject: Fwd: 333 La Cienega Blvd project case#ENV-2015-897-EIR To: [email protected]
Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message:
From: Youssef <[email protected]> Date: April 18, 2016 at 3:36:45 PM PDT To: [email protected] Subject: 333 La Cienega Blvd project case#ENV-2015-897-EIR
Dear Sir; I reside at 321 S. San Vicente Blvd, #701, L.A 90048, across proposed project, past 40 years, since moving here for Occidental college studies, 1978. My 60 year old wife, battling Cancer at Cedar Sinai hospital, relapsing twice past 8 years, same location 28 year old mentally delayed daughter was born. Same neighborhood her along with 2nd healthy daughter attended local schools, graduating with honor. We here obliviously, would not like noise & inconveniences of any construction, especially One giant Zone change construction. Construction noise & inconveniences are never limited to ( official construction hours only ) loading, unloading materials, for coming week, & beyond at after midnight truck stops, extra traffic commute employees daily for years coming, &....? Already daily, evening rush hour 3rd & San Vicente connecting to La Cienega & beyond has bottle neck traffic issues. In total, do not have plenty of time to address all concerns in detail, on this greed project. One main concern. The request for a Zone change, building hight, is unjustified. As mentioned when moved here, was no Beverly Center mall, no Beverly Connection mall, no Plaza La Cienega strip mall, or adjoins 333 La Cienega Bank ( later retail ) mall ( all 3rd & La Cienega ), was no Grove mall (3rd & Fair Fax farms market extension) or 5 star luxury four seasons hotel ( 3rd & Doheny ) end of city of Los Angeles & begin city Beverly Hills. Burton way La Cienega till same L.A city limit is full of rental properties of various names & causes. This Zone change would allow all of them ability to re construct under One new Zone change permit a excuse for all to become richer by going higher, greed because of new Zone, higher level multiple various structures will end at same junction happened recession of 2008, banks, builders, speculators, over building, just because of Greed all parties, & cities wanting to collect more property taxes, ( this in correct argument, & mind set ) has now the whole country
2
stuck in deep recession of past years, & still lingering. We have to be vigilant not to allow that wrong mind set of quick money destroy our neighborhood. Even Cedar Sinai hospital added many structures but all mentioned abided with the current city plan zone requirement. Most recent rental, commercial venture built was 8500 Burton way, ( across street ) Done tastefully, fitting within in the surrounding city planning. None of the luxury hotels, or others by passed the present zone hight limit. Los Angeles is earth quake county & no one can predict, next quake will be a 7, or 8 or 9 rectors, reminding that each rector point in earth quake, does not equal same amount of damage caused! If there are new zone change, it will go against the grain of all city planning of our finding fathers City of Los Angeles, & as mentioned all developments past 40 years have abided with that spirit, no need to have our clear city sky line resemble down town, Century city, or Chicago, N.Y......? Thank you for your time, & treating everyone the same, under the law of the land. Best wishes Youssefi Sent from my iPad Sent from my iPad
1
Erika Lam
To: Kimberly D. ComachoSubject: RE: 333 Comment
From: Alejandro Huerta [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 1:43 PM To: Kimberly D. Comacho Subject: Fwd: 333 Comment ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Susan Hanasab <[email protected]> Date: Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 1:38 PM Subject: Dear Alejandro I need your help please. To: [email protected]
Dear Alejandro I am writing to you regarding a development that is trying to get approved with the Planning Department: http://www.carusoaffiliated.com/caruso/development/property.php?id_property=7 We as condo owners are very concerned - those of us who our view is going to be blocked at Westbury Terrace: 321 S. San Vicente Blvd., LA CA 90048. This development is 20 story high and terrible for our beautiful view that we enjoy currently. Can you please call me at 310 497 8350 as soon as possible. Susan Hanasab
1
Erika Lam
To: Kimberly D. ComachoSubject: RE: 333 La Cienega
From: Alejandro Huerta [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 9:04 AM To: Kimberly D. Comacho Cc: Sam Garrison Subject: Fwd: 333 La Cienega NOP comments usually come in toward the end of the Scoping period, so I'll be sending them to you as they come in the next 2 days. Please compile for the Draft EIR. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Bender <[email protected]> Date: Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 3:39 PM Subject: 333 La Cienega To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected], Mark Rosenberg <[email protected]>
Hi Alejandro,
I just want to continue our conversation from the Scope Meeting last week which I thought was very informative. It is my understanding that the last date for public comments is this Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 4:00 p.m. These are some of the comments that I would like to be noted in this case.
First, I would like to ask for some clarity on the existing land use & zoning height limitations in the neighborhood as compared to the requested use on this site. The Notice of Preparation provide us states that the current zoning is C2-1VL-O and the requested zoning is C2-2-O. Can you provide and explain the differences between these designations? Why is the City considering such a significant height increase compared to the buildings on La Cienega (Caruso’s newest building & the Goodson/Cedars 12 story building), San Vicente (The Westbury 12 story residential building), and Burton Way four-six story buildings. Samuel Garrison, of Caruso Affiliated, mentioned that they would be able to superimpose a view of the new building with 8544 Burton Way in mind because of aesthetic concerns and obstruction of the view of the Hollywood sign. Could we acquire this?
Second, I am curious if you can provide a copy of a recent traffic impact report for the surrounding areas, especially for San Vicente, Burton Way and La Cienega. I am sure you are aware of the almost daily gridlock on La Cienega during rush hours for traffic traveling to and from the 10 Freeway.
Third, I am curious if the 333 La Cienega Project is requesting a 100-200% density increase whether the city will require a proportional "low income housing element" i.e. a requirement that 25% or more of the unites be designated for low income/senior housing to benefit the community.
2
Lastly, I am curious on the application process for similar rezoning properties on Burton Way open to given the City’s apparent desire for further development in the area.
I have CC'd interested parties.
Best,
Jordan Bender
818-667-7016
Beverly Hills Institute Alex Foxman, MD, Inc.
Internal and Preventive Medicine
9400 Brighton Way • Suite 410 • Beverly Hills • CA • 90210 Tel: 310.274.0657 • Fax: 310.274.6083 • www.bhinstitute.com
“Live Healthy • Look Healthy • Be Healthy”
Page 1 of 2
February 25, 2015 Sent via Facsimile and E-mail Alejandro Huerta Environmental Analysis Section Department of City Planning 200 N. Spring Street, Room 750 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Fax (213) 978-1343 [email protected] Dear Mr. Huerta, I am writing today to provide public comment regarding the proposed 333 La Cienega Boulevard apartment project (Project) and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). I am a condominium owner, for over 10 years, at 321 South San Vicente Blvd (Unit# 407) which sits directly across from the proposed Project and will be the closet residential structure to be directly impacted by the Project construction and long term use. Though I am not against the Project, most if not all 88 condo unit owners/tenants have significant concerns that must be addressed, and if needed, remedied prior to Project approval consideration. The concerns below are just an example and are not a complete list: 1. Environmental impact of current Project building and lot, including hazardous materials, natural resource disturbance (gas, oil ect).
Beverly Hills Institute Alex Foxman, MD, Inc.
Internal and Preventive Medicine
9400 Brighton Way • Suite 410 • Beverly Hills • CA • 90210 Tel: 310.274.0657 • Fax: 310.274.6083 • www.bhinstitute.com
“Live Healthy • Look Healthy • Be Healthy”
Page 2 of 2
2. Project erection issues including hazardous materials, noise, parking, traffic, privacy, safety, loss of condo building tenants and owner revenue. 3. Post project erection issues including parking, noise, privacy, safety, loss of property value, loss of sunlight. I understand that Caruso Affiliated has stated that they will be willing to address concerns and work closely with the condo owners and residents. Please make this document available for public record. Sincerely, Alex Foxman, M.D., F.A.C.P. Medical Director Beverly Hills Institute
February 23, 2016
Alejandro Huerta
Environmental Analysis SectionDepartment of City Planning200 N. Spring Street, Room 750Los Angeles, CA 90012
r
RE: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report — 333 S. La Cienega BoulevardProject
Thank you for providing the City of Beverly Hills (City) with the opportunity to comment on the InitialStudy for the 333 S. La Cienega Boulevard Project (Project). Due to the Project’s close proximity to theCity of Beverly Hills, there is a potential that the City of Beverly Hills and its residents could experiencenegative impacts both during the construction of the Project and as a result of operation thereafter. Wehave reviewed the Initial Study and have concerns about potential impacts related to Traffic andConstruction. Please address the following concerns:
1. The City of Beverly Hills disagrees with the trip generation assumptions and does not find themjustifiable. We request that revised trip generation and assignments be used in future analysis ofthe project, especially for Beverly Hills internal and adjacent intersections. The City disagreeswith the following assumptions:
a. 50% reduction of trips credit for pass-by trips for the existing use
Department of Community Development, 455 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90210 p (310) 285-1141 f(310) 858-9166 BeverlyHills.org
Dear Alejandro Huerta:
TRAFFIC
333 La Cienega Initial StudyFebruary 24, 2016Page 2 of 3
b. 40% reduction of trips for pass-by trips for the proposed supermarket
c. 15% reduction of trips for transit and walk for proposed apartments
d. 10% reduction of pass-by trips for restaurant.
2. Please study all Beverly Hills intersections including the Olympic/La Cienega intersection usingIntersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. Provide a copy of calculations sheets forverification. Please ensure that a 0.90 peak hour factor is used and not 1.00 or lane capacity of1600 vehicles per hour per lane.
3. The intersection at Beverly Boulevard and Doheny Drive is in West Hollywood, not BeverlyHills.
4. Please explain the radius used for the cumulative projects within the City of Beverly Hills.
5. Please describe why the Metro Rapid 720 is not included on the transit line list.
6. Please provide information in the appendix related to the City of Beverly Hills thresholds ofsignificance and ICU methodology.
If you require any information regarding Beverly Hills thresholds or other transportation related topics,please contact Bijan Vaziri in the Transportation Division at 310.285.2556.
CONSTRUCTION
1. If the heavy haul route passes through the City of Beverly Hills, please ensure that the project isin compliance with the Beverly Hills heavy haul regulations.
2. Due to the proximity of the Project to Cedar’s Sinai Medical Center, the City has concerns aboutincreased traffic as a result of lane closures and road blocks along streets that provide access tothe Medical Center from the City. The Initial Study indicates that portions of San Vicente andLa Cienega Boulevards may be closed during construction. If it is necessary to close travel lanesplease keep the City apprised of any upcoming road blocks/closures during project constructionso that the Fire Department has access to this information and can adjust routes as appropriate.The City requests that the impacts of this be studied in the DEIR and that the developer and Cityof Los Angeles inform the City of Beverly Hills about any scheduled lane or street closures.
Department of Community Development, 455 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90210 p (310) 285-1141 f(3 10) 858-9166 BeverlyHills.org
333 La Cienega Initial Study
february 24, 2016
Page 3 of 3
Please contact Timothea Tway at (310) 285-1122 to inform the City of any road closures due toconstruction and to discuss mitigation measures should additional significant impacts be identified, asoutlined above. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact me at (310)285-1118 or by email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
RYAN GORLICH, AICPAssistant Director/City PlannerCommunity Development Department
cc: Mahdi Aluzri, City ManagerGeorge Chavez, Assistant City Manager
Susan Healy Keene, AICP, Director of Community DevelopmentAaron Kunz, AICP, Deputy Director of Transportation
Scott Stephens, Fire Battalion Chief
Lincoln Hoshino, Police Sergeant
Department of Community Development, 455 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90210 p (310) 285-1141 ff310) 858-9166 BeverlyHills.org
We need your input! Please take a few minutes to provide your comments and return the completed form to the Department of City Planning.
The purpose of the scoping process is to identify public concerns, and help identify the issues that will be examined in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Comments must be provided in writing and can be submitted either at the scoping meeting, by fax, mail or e-mail to [email protected].
The deadline for submitting preliminary comments is February 25, 2016. All written comments submitted will be considered during preparation of the Draft EIR, which will be available for public review at a later date. The Initial Study is available for review at the Dept of City Planning, 200 N. Spring St., Rm 750, LA, CA 90012.
Thank you for your participation!
Alejandro H
uerta, Environmental Review
Coordinator
RE: ENV-2015-897-EIR
Departm
ent of City Planning
City of Los A
ngeles 200 N
Spring St, Rm 750
Los Angeles, C
A90012
Project Name: 333 La Cienega Boulevard Project
Planning Dept Case No.: ENV‐2015‐897‐EIR
State Clearinghouse No: #2016011061
Project Location: 333 La Cienega Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90048
Community Planning Area: Wilshire
Council District: CD 5, Paul Koretz
Due Date for Public Comments: February 25, 2016
The Initial Study is available at: http://planning.lacity.org/eir/ nops/333LaCienega/is.pdf
Public Scoping Meeting
Tape H
ere
Written Comment Form Use the space below to comment on areas of concern regarding the scope and content of the Draft EIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES & IMPACTS
CEQA requires consideration of the following topics:
Aesthetics
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Traffic/Transportation
Utilities/Service Systems
CONTACT INFORMATION (Optional, please print clearly)
Name: Susan Hanasab Representing Agency or Organization:
Address: 321 S. San Vicente Blvd., unit 306 and 805 City/State/Zip: LA CA 90048
Dear Sir, my name is Susan Hanasab. I am the owner of units 805 and 306 at Westbury Terrace.
Please note the following:
1)Unit 805 has been in the family since early 80s and a source of income as of a few years ago for me. The main attraction of the unit is by far the broad view of the City of Los Angeles. In fact one for one each person who rents the unit is very much amazed by the attractive broad view of the unit and pays according to that. It should be known that me and my family are 100% against the construction of any building that would block my unit’s view in any way, shape or form. The block of the view translates directly into “lower income” and “lower property value” and aesthetically much less pleasing view. I do not own any other properties other than these two: I live in unit 306 and unit 805 is a source of income to pay the bills. So clearly I would do everything in my power to stop any development that infringes on the view of the condo (unit 805) and my rights as a homeowner. Please note that I am not interested in a trade‐off that is rumored to happen: i.e. Caruso Affiliated making a deal with the HOA President Mr. Cohanim to have the lobby of Westbury remodeled in exchange for blocking our views. I was told a meeting occurred between the Caruso team and Mr. Cophanim a few days ago to that effect. It is not logical or fair to those of us who loose the view even though partially. The affected people are about 20 in numbers and those are units facing the Eeast side and from 6 floor and up. The solution is to build only 5 floors and per the existing zoning. 2) The level of noise and dust not to mention the traffic jam would be very unpleasant and
unhealthy – unbearable at times. In terms of dust ‐ I have a long condition and cannot handle
debris and dust. I have a letter from my MD at Cedars.
Susan Hanasab (310) 497 8350
321 S. San Vicente Blvd. units 306 and 805 LA CA 90048
Note: Any identifying information provided will become part of the public record and, as such, must be released to any individual upon request.
