BrentwoodCommunityCouncil

149 S. Barrington Ave., Box 194 Los Angeles, CA 90049

Author’s info: phone

●

310.472- 908 fax

●

310.471-3006 email

●

rklein@earthlink.net

November 17, 2009Los Angeles Department of City PlanningAdvisory AgencyAttention: Luciralia IbarraVia email:luciralia.ibarra@lacity.orgRe: Bundy VillageCase No.: VTT-66732-CN-DB-GBCEQA No.: ENV-2006-3125-EIRCases: CPC-2007-1486-GPA-ZC-CU-DB-SPRDear Deputy Advisory Agency:The Brentwood Community Council (“BCC”) is the broadest based Brentwood communityorganization, representing approximately 50,000 stakeholders of the community, includinghomeowner associations, business organizations, youth groups, schools, religious groups,volunteer service groups, multi-family residential dwellers, public safety and environmentalorganizations. Its coverage area is just to the north of the proposed project.The BCC submits the following comments and objections to the Los Angeles Department of CityPlanning in connection with the above case numbers for the “Bundy Village and Medical Plaza”.The BCC and its stakeholders have deep concerns about the impact that this very large proposedproject will have on traffic throughout Brentwood and West Los Angeles. Traffic in this area isalready effectively gridlocked from Sunset on the north to the I-10 on the south, and literallygridlocked daily at Bundy and Olympic, the major intersection adjacent to the proposed project.According to the developer’s own traffic study, this project will increase car trips through thearea by over 20,073 trips per day. Currently, the gridlock on the I-10 freeway forces drivers ontosurface streets such as Pico Blvd., Olympic Blvd., and Santa Monica Blvd. These streets becomegridlocked as well, which forces drivers to reroute their trips further north onto Wilshire Blvd.,Montana Avenue, San Vicente Blvd., and Sunset Blvd., all of which are in Brentwood.Therefore, although it is located in West Los Angeles south of Wilshire, this project directlyimpacts traffic in Brentwood.In addition, Bundy is one of only three major streets that run north-south from Sunset Blvd. inBrentwood to the I-10 freeway, the others being Barrington (0.5 miles to the East) and 26

Street/Allenford (1 mile to the West), and of those streets only Bundy directly accesses the I-10freeway. Therefore, the importance of traffic flow on Bundy to our community is extremely

BrentwoodCommunityCouncil

310.47 - 908

●

phone 310.471-3006

●

fax rklein@earthlink.net

●

e-mail

high. This project will impact the ability of all Brentwood residents and business people toaccess their community and the I-10 freeway, the only east-west freeway in the region.We were not involved in early review of the project because we were not contacted by projectrepresentatives nor was traffic information pertaining to our community shared with us.However, many entities and groups who submitted comment letters on the Draft EnvironmentalImpact Report (DEIR) believe that the traffic study prepared by the developer for the DEIRunderstated the traffic impact, and expressed serious concerns about the impact that this projectwould have on traffic in the area. (Detailed list below.) The BCC incorporates those commentletters, and all the statements in those letters regarding the inadequacies of the traffic study(including the faulty methodology used by the traffic study) by reference in this letter.

Hearing is Premature and Unlawful Because Mitigation Measures and the Level of Significance After Mitigation are Unknown

4 of the 9 locations that the LADOT lists as capable of being fully mitigated to less thansignificant involve the I-10. The LADOT states in the DEIR:

“However, it should be noted that the viability of any proposed improvement that involves a portion of the state highway system will require final review and approval by Caltrans; failure to obtain this approval will result in that impact remaining unmitigated.”

Caltrans’ comment letter in the DEIR indicates that at the time of its DEIR review, Caltrans didnot agree with the traffic mitigations proposed by the developer, and as a result Hirsch/Green hasbeen revising its traffic analysis and suggested mitigations on an ongoing basis. One Caltranscomment on the DEIR stated:”

Since Caltrans does not agree with the proposed comprehensive improvement of the Bundy Drive/I-10 westbound off-ramp and eastbound on-ramp interchangeimprovements,..”

On Thursday, November 13, 2009, representatives of the BCC attended a special West LosAngeles Neighborhood Council (WLANC) PLUM committee meeting with representatives fromCaltrans, LADOT, and Hirsch/Green (traffic consultant for the developer). At this meeting,Caltrans, LADOT, and Hirsch/Green all said that the traffic analysis and list of potentialmitigations for this project was not yet complete. Caltrans acknowledged that it is possible itwould not agree to proposed improvements that relate to the I-10 and LADOT acknowledgedthat Caltrans has final authority to accept or reject these improvements. Further, Santa MonicaBlvd. and Lincoln Blvd. are State Highways and would require a permit from Caltrans for anymitigation measures.Hirsch/Green said that it was targeting to have its own analysis completed just prior to ascheduled meeting with the Department of City Planning on January 14, 2010, and WLANCasked for that report to be completed by January 6 so that they could review and give comments

BrentwoodCommunityCouncil

310.47 - 908

●

phone 310.471-3006

●

fax rklein@earthlink.net

●

e-mail

on it. Even if this delivery date from Hirsch/Green is achieved, it does not leave sufficient timefor the agencies and the public to review the revised set of proposals and for the agencies and thedeveloper to mutually agree on which of the new recommendations can be achieved. Until thatanalysis is completed, delivered and reviewed by interested parties, it is premature and unlawfulfor the subject hearing to be held. Furthermore, providing an analysis that may significantlychange the mitigations listed in the DEIR and FEIR one week prior to a City Planning meeting inJanuary 2010 does not leave sufficient time for public review and comment on these revisions.Since the proposed mitigation improvements are unknown and not capable of critique by thepublic at this time, it is not proper or lawful to hold a public hearing for which the Notice statesthe Hearing Officer will consider the adoption of Certification of Environmental Impact Report,findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations.Since it is not possible for the public to fully comment on proposed mitigation improvements atthis time, it is not proper or lawful for the Hearing Officer on November 18, 2009, to considerany of the noticed matters involving discretionary decisions, because no aspect of the projectshould be considered or approved when it is not possible to make a lawful decision pursuant toCEQA. Public comments on the size of the project, the amount of retail space, the amount of parking, the Tentative Tract Map, the zone change and General Plan Amendment, density bonus,setbacks, conditional use for excessive medical office floor area, and Site Plan Review would beinextricably tied together with the extent of the significant adverse environmental impacts whichare not capable of being ascertained at this time.Therefore, BCC believes that it is premature and unlawful for the Los Angeles Department of City Planning to consider, let alone grant, any zone changes, or any other discretionaryapprovals, for the project until the final traffic mitigations for the project have been provided,reviewed, analyzed, and discussed openly. In addition, any approved traffic mitigations must besufficient to offset the negative environmental effects of building such a large project at theproposed site of Bundy and Olympic. If the proposed traffic mitigations are not sufficient tooffset the impact of the project, the project must be downsized to a level that sufficientmitigations can be proposed and agreed, or else disapproved.

Incompatibility of Current Bundy Village FEIR with State, County, and City Guidelines

The EIR for the project is clear that, even if the mitigations proposed in the EIR could beachieved, the project does not meet many objectives and requirements of the City, County, andState of California with respect to transportation and traffic issues.CEQAThe DEIR states that “Based on analysis contained in the Draft Environmental Impact Report,the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable environmental impacts withrespect to air quality (construction and operational emissions), noise and vibration (construction),